Swindon AdvertiserLegal cases stall audit release (From Swindon Advertiser)

Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us

Legal cases stall audit release

Swindon Advertiser: Sangita Shah Sangita Shah

THE full details of Swindon Town’s recent audit will not be made public until a number of legal cases involving the club are concluded, according to director Sangita Shah.

Accountancy firm Hacker Young conducted the forensic examination of Town’s books last year, completing their work in November, and since then a basic set of accounts have appeared on the Companies House website while Shah herself released a watered down commentary of what fans can expect to see when the results of the survey come to public light.

However, Swindon are currently engaged in legal battles on at least three fronts and Shah told the Advertiser that it was in the best interests of the club for some of the finer points of the audit to remain private for the time being.

“I felt there were mixed messages regarding what I was going to disclose,” she said. “I did a commentary and I know people said that wasn’t enough and they want to look at the numbers.

“There are some numbers which I think are publically available as well but at this stage I think that is all we are going to disclose. I don’t want to go into more detail of the club’s finances but what we’ve said is we’ll have a Q&A and financial debate in terms of the status in an AGM, but not at the moment.

“When things have settled down with all the legal disputes we’ll be happy to do that.

“At the moment, because we have quite a lot of litigation going through, the details that are over and above what is published on Companies House we will not be able to go into just because we can’t. Legally it would be silly to do it.

“People will say ‘hang on, you were talking about transparency’. We’re definitely up for transparency but we have been counselled.

“There are a few cases which are ongoing and with those cases it’s not in our interest to publish detailed finances of the club.”

The Advertiser understands that Town are engaged in legal disputes with former defender Alberto Comazzi and striker Adam Rooney, while it is also believed that Paolo Di Canio’s agent Phil Spencer has submitted a claim against the Robins.

Comazzi was employed as a consultant by Town as part of the agreement reached to terminate his contract in Wiltshire before being convicted of match-fixing in his native Italy. He is reportedly trying to recoup £143,200.

Rooney’s representatives came to an agreement with the board of former owner Andrew Black back in August 2012 which ensured the forward’s loan move from Birmingham would lead to a permanent contract last August, only for Town to renege on the deal as they suggested the paperwork was not legitimate.

Comments (118)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:32am Tue 21 Jan 14

dazzastfc says...

thanks jw spencer pdc YOU GAVE USE A GOOD SEASON AND NOW WE ARE PAYING FOR IT BIG TIME...
thanks jw spencer pdc YOU GAVE USE A GOOD SEASON AND NOW WE ARE PAYING FOR IT BIG TIME... dazzastfc
  • Score: 8

7:17am Tue 21 Jan 14

Chish and Fips says...

Now Jayden remember its a 'she' not a 'he' :o)

Agreed Dazza, was fun at the time ... time to pay up possibly now. Most annoying part it appears the leech Spencer is still trying to bleed our club dry.
Now Jayden remember its a 'she' not a 'he' :o) Agreed Dazza, was fun at the time ... time to pay up possibly now. Most annoying part it appears the leech Spencer is still trying to bleed our club dry. Chish and Fips
  • Score: 7

7:21am Tue 21 Jan 14

Haydonender says...

Should've known Spencer would be trying to bleed some more money from the club, vulture that he is. He made a packet while saddling us with overpaid players, two thirds of which were useless and he's still circling for more.

Rooney's is probably the big one as his contract would've been worth several hundreds of thousands on his rumoured wage so if we lost that one, or all three cases, it would be a big hit. Hope that Power has budgeted for some potential pay outs or is prepared to cover it himself, though it is sad he would have to pay the price for the mistakes of the two previous regimes.
Should've known Spencer would be trying to bleed some more money from the club, vulture that he is. He made a packet while saddling us with overpaid players, two thirds of which were useless and he's still circling for more. Rooney's is probably the big one as his contract would've been worth several hundreds of thousands on his rumoured wage so if we lost that one, or all three cases, it would be a big hit. Hope that Power has budgeted for some potential pay outs or is prepared to cover it himself, though it is sad he would have to pay the price for the mistakes of the two previous regimes. Haydonender
  • Score: 9

7:21am Tue 21 Jan 14

california andy says...

My opinions of Spencer and Comazzi are unprintable, lest I get sued. What damage the old regime did to the club. Rooney, I have some slight sympathy for, but his crazy contract proposal is just another example of how the PDC regime screwed the club royally. The other useless players still on our books continue to bleed money out of the club and leave us unable to fix obvious problems, contributing to fan discontent that it is aimed at the wrong people (Power and Cooper). Dreadful to think that these uncertainties continue to hang over us.
My opinions of Spencer and Comazzi are unprintable, lest I get sued. What damage the old regime did to the club. Rooney, I have some slight sympathy for, but his crazy contract proposal is just another example of how the PDC regime screwed the club royally. The other useless players still on our books continue to bleed money out of the club and leave us unable to fix obvious problems, contributing to fan discontent that it is aimed at the wrong people (Power and Cooper). Dreadful to think that these uncertainties continue to hang over us. california andy
  • Score: 17

7:24am Tue 21 Jan 14

jayden says...

Chish and Fips wrote:
Now Jayden remember its a 'she' not a 'he' :o)

Agreed Dazza, was fun at the time ... time to pay up possibly now. Most annoying part it appears the leech Spencer is still trying to bleed our club dry.
Nice one Chish LoL .
[quote][p][bold]Chish and Fips[/bold] wrote: Now Jayden remember its a 'she' not a 'he' :o) Agreed Dazza, was fun at the time ... time to pay up possibly now. Most annoying part it appears the leech Spencer is still trying to bleed our club dry.[/p][/quote]Nice one Chish LoL . jayden
  • Score: 2

7:32am Tue 21 Jan 14

LeGod says...

Just shows how poor Rooney is can't make the first 11 at Oldham and we were going to pay him a fortune for being a average player. The money we blew on some poor players is mind boggling and they still want more.
Some bad business done by pdc and black during their stint and we are still suffering because of them well I hope the legal people sort this out in our favour.
Just shows how poor Rooney is can't make the first 11 at Oldham and we were going to pay him a fortune for being a average player. The money we blew on some poor players is mind boggling and they still want more. Some bad business done by pdc and black during their stint and we are still suffering because of them well I hope the legal people sort this out in our favour. LeGod
  • Score: 6

7:39am Tue 21 Jan 14

Since 1950 says...

Beginning to become clear why MB wanted out. If theses cases go against us it could finish the club. That is not an over exaggeration.
Agree with california on his thoughts on some of the players in this piece.

In other news thoughts for Ossie Ardilles who has been air lifted to hospital following an accident in the Falklands.
Beginning to become clear why MB wanted out. If theses cases go against us it could finish the club. That is not an over exaggeration. Agree with california on his thoughts on some of the players in this piece. In other news thoughts for Ossie Ardilles who has been air lifted to hospital following an accident in the Falklands. Since 1950
  • Score: 6

7:41am Tue 21 Jan 14

Since 1950 says...

Since 1950 wrote:
Beginning to become clear why MB wanted out. If theses cases go against us it could finish the club. That is not an over exaggeration.
Agree with california on his thoughts on some of the players in this piece.

In other news thoughts for Ossie Ardilles who has been air lifted to hospital following an accident in the Falklands.
Sorry, should read AB.
[quote][p][bold]Since 1950[/bold] wrote: Beginning to become clear why MB wanted out. If theses cases go against us it could finish the club. That is not an over exaggeration. Agree with california on his thoughts on some of the players in this piece. In other news thoughts for Ossie Ardilles who has been air lifted to hospital following an accident in the Falklands.[/p][/quote]Sorry, should read AB. Since 1950
  • Score: 3

8:02am Tue 21 Jan 14

stfc2012 says...

Need to update the Shah picture. That shot of her in a karaoke bar not doing her any favours. No mention of legal cases holding up the audit release until now. Strange after being continuously told we were very healthy financially. There is at least one more legal case going on with ex coaching staff and probably more. Something in the audit they don't want us to see. Strange as most of what was audited was pre this regime was it not?
Need to update the Shah picture. That shot of her in a karaoke bar not doing her any favours. No mention of legal cases holding up the audit release until now. Strange after being continuously told we were very healthy financially. There is at least one more legal case going on with ex coaching staff and probably more. Something in the audit they don't want us to see. Strange as most of what was audited was pre this regime was it not? stfc2012
  • Score: -5

8:02am Tue 21 Jan 14

mancrobin says...

Can the club sue PdC for squandering funds in a profligate manner?
Can the club sue PdC for squandering funds in a profligate manner? mancrobin
  • Score: 6

8:15am Tue 21 Jan 14

bradley red 1 says...

What do you know fredi??
What do you know fredi?? bradley red 1
  • Score: -6

8:20am Tue 21 Jan 14

oz ashes says...

mancrobin wrote:
Can the club sue PdC for squandering funds in a profligate manner?
pdc and black really did BUY us success and now we are paying for it this commazzi trying to get money is absolute boll****
[quote][p][bold]mancrobin[/bold] wrote: Can the club sue PdC for squandering funds in a profligate manner?[/p][/quote]pdc and black really did BUY us success and now we are paying for it this commazzi trying to get money is absolute boll**** oz ashes
  • Score: 1

8:28am Tue 21 Jan 14

Oxon-Red says...

stfc2012 wrote:
Need to update the Shah picture. That shot of her in a karaoke bar not doing her any favours. No mention of legal cases holding up the audit release until now. Strange after being continuously told we were very healthy financially. There is at least one more legal case going on with ex coaching staff and probably more. Something in the audit they don't want us to see. Strange as most of what was audited was pre this regime was it not?
Is she singing the Kiki Dee part in the Duet with Elton John ?

Don't go breaking my heart...

COYMR
[quote][p][bold]stfc2012[/bold] wrote: Need to update the Shah picture. That shot of her in a karaoke bar not doing her any favours. No mention of legal cases holding up the audit release until now. Strange after being continuously told we were very healthy financially. There is at least one more legal case going on with ex coaching staff and probably more. Something in the audit they don't want us to see. Strange as most of what was audited was pre this regime was it not?[/p][/quote]Is she singing the Kiki Dee part in the Duet with Elton John ? Don't go breaking my heart... COYMR Oxon-Red
  • Score: -1

8:49am Tue 21 Jan 14

Davidsyrett says...

Just shows how much it cost us for that "one" good season. Was it really worth it? So glad we are now being run sensibly, even if it means mid table.
Just shows how much it cost us for that "one" good season. Was it really worth it? So glad we are now being run sensibly, even if it means mid table. Davidsyrett
  • Score: 4

8:51am Tue 21 Jan 14

Oi Den! says...

The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle.

Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.
The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle. Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well. Oi Den!
  • Score: -16

9:02am Tue 21 Jan 14

port de soller says...

Does not look good at all.could this finally push STFC oer the edge and ot of the FL.
How LP said we are in good shape and do not need money.
Agree ref Mooney but the rest????has sounds of Embargo and who knows the end.
What do Dicanio lovers say now?????
No wonder the last lot wanted out oh why why do STFC allways appear to be in the s--
As said why don´t they come out and tell us,no wonder they are not bringing in players they are totally skint,such a sad situation caused by by a silly Manager and Board who wasted so so much money.
Cannot blame players if there entiltled to payments
Does not look good at all.could this finally push STFC oer the edge and ot of the FL. How LP said we are in good shape and do not need money. Agree ref Mooney but the rest????has sounds of Embargo and who knows the end. What do Dicanio lovers say now????? No wonder the last lot wanted out oh why why do STFC allways appear to be in the s-- As said why don´t they come out and tell us,no wonder they are not bringing in players they are totally skint,such a sad situation caused by by a silly Manager and Board who wasted so so much money. Cannot blame players if there entiltled to payments port de soller
  • Score: -12

9:10am Tue 21 Jan 14

the don69 says...

Oi Den! wrote:
The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle.

Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.
That's a bit harsh Den! Wray,Watkin and PDC must take a lot of the blame for this allowing PDC to squander loads of Blacks dosh,until Black finally said no more! and I don't blame the players there out for what they can get,they don't care about the clubs finances and can just move on,seems to me Wray and Watkin were PDC'S solders! whatever the Godfather wanted was given and put on Blacks tab!!!!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle. Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.[/p][/quote]That's a bit harsh Den! Wray,Watkin and PDC must take a lot of the blame for this allowing PDC to squander loads of Blacks dosh,until Black finally said no more! and I don't blame the players there out for what they can get,they don't care about the clubs finances and can just move on,seems to me Wray and Watkin were PDC'S solders! whatever the Godfather wanted was given and put on Blacks tab!!!!!!!!! the don69
  • Score: 11

9:14am Tue 21 Jan 14

mrwoo says...

Rooney has a very good case, which Jed, Power and co were aware of when they took over.
Rooney has a very good case, which Jed, Power and co were aware of when they took over. mrwoo
  • Score: 1

9:17am Tue 21 Jan 14

MarksDad says...

Oh look a whole page of my favorite doom and gloom merchants!

The thought of reading your made up , over zealous tripe fills me with horror, so I guess I'll have to do what the sane majority do....ignore you all.

Enjoy yourselves in your sad worlds.

COYR
Oh look a whole page of my favorite doom and gloom merchants! The thought of reading your made up , over zealous tripe fills me with horror, so I guess I'll have to do what the sane majority do....ignore you all. Enjoy yourselves in your sad worlds. COYR MarksDad
  • Score: -3

9:28am Tue 21 Jan 14

you gots ta be kidding me says...

MarksDad wrote:
Oh look a whole page of my favorite doom and gloom merchants! The thought of reading your made up , over zealous tripe fills me with horror, so I guess I'll have to do what the sane majority do....ignore you all. Enjoy yourselves in your sad worlds. COYR
Marksdad, don't get what possitives that you took from the above article, there is nothing positive to read, we are fighting litigation on three fronts for money the club doesn't have, so why would there be positive comments under that.

Whether you like it or not, commazi also had a deal with the club to leave and be paid a consultancy fee, this freed his substantial wages up and allowed us to bring in replacements, I don't agree with it but if JW sanctioned it you cant blame the player if he had a contract then we should pay it.

Likewise whilst its stupid money Rooney was offered a deal and we went back on it, I cant see us winning that one either, Spencer is just a leach...
[quote][p][bold]MarksDad[/bold] wrote: Oh look a whole page of my favorite doom and gloom merchants! The thought of reading your made up , over zealous tripe fills me with horror, so I guess I'll have to do what the sane majority do....ignore you all. Enjoy yourselves in your sad worlds. COYR[/p][/quote]Marksdad, don't get what possitives that you took from the above article, there is nothing positive to read, we are fighting litigation on three fronts for money the club doesn't have, so why would there be positive comments under that. Whether you like it or not, commazi also had a deal with the club to leave and be paid a consultancy fee, this freed his substantial wages up and allowed us to bring in replacements, I don't agree with it but if JW sanctioned it you cant blame the player if he had a contract then we should pay it. Likewise whilst its stupid money Rooney was offered a deal and we went back on it, I cant see us winning that one either, Spencer is just a leach... you gots ta be kidding me
  • Score: 8

9:34am Tue 21 Jan 14

the don69 says...

you gots ta be kidding me wrote:
MarksDad wrote:
Oh look a whole page of my favorite doom and gloom merchants! The thought of reading your made up , over zealous tripe fills me with horror, so I guess I'll have to do what the sane majority do....ignore you all. Enjoy yourselves in your sad worlds. COYR
Marksdad, don't get what possitives that you took from the above article, there is nothing positive to read, we are fighting litigation on three fronts for money the club doesn't have, so why would there be positive comments under that.

Whether you like it or not, commazi also had a deal with the club to leave and be paid a consultancy fee, this freed his substantial wages up and allowed us to bring in replacements, I don't agree with it but if JW sanctioned it you cant blame the player if he had a contract then we should pay it.

Likewise whilst its stupid money Rooney was offered a deal and we went back on it, I cant see us winning that one either, Spencer is just a leach...
I feel sorry for Mark his son!LOL!!!!
[quote][p][bold]you gots ta be kidding me[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarksDad[/bold] wrote: Oh look a whole page of my favorite doom and gloom merchants! The thought of reading your made up , over zealous tripe fills me with horror, so I guess I'll have to do what the sane majority do....ignore you all. Enjoy yourselves in your sad worlds. COYR[/p][/quote]Marksdad, don't get what possitives that you took from the above article, there is nothing positive to read, we are fighting litigation on three fronts for money the club doesn't have, so why would there be positive comments under that. Whether you like it or not, commazi also had a deal with the club to leave and be paid a consultancy fee, this freed his substantial wages up and allowed us to bring in replacements, I don't agree with it but if JW sanctioned it you cant blame the player if he had a contract then we should pay it. Likewise whilst its stupid money Rooney was offered a deal and we went back on it, I cant see us winning that one either, Spencer is just a leach...[/p][/quote]I feel sorry for Mark his son!LOL!!!! the don69
  • Score: 13

9:40am Tue 21 Jan 14

Chish and Fips says...

Oi Den! wrote:
The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle.

Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.
Hopefully your geru 'Fredi' will answer your questions soon ... probably trawling the rumour boards as we speak...ouch !! ;o)
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle. Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.[/p][/quote]Hopefully your geru 'Fredi' will answer your questions soon ... probably trawling the rumour boards as we speak...ouch !! ;o) Chish and Fips
  • Score: 4

9:41am Tue 21 Jan 14

stfc2012 says...

The Italian's 10k a month consultancy wage is obviously quite weird. Essentially a very high wage on a freelance basis to have benefits, possibly tax. The buyers would have been aware of this. Rooney deal was a done deal which owners knew of and are trying to wriggle out of. The others are thought to be more minor in terms of cost but all combined its a big sum. But, they were aware of this when they opted to buy the club. It's no surprise. And it was never mentioned previously when talkin up how financial sound we are. Shah stalling yet again when pressed for answers. As these cases may go on for some time she has her tactics spot on. Can't see any reason why puishing an audit would affect our cases - in fact if the current lot are doing a good job it would show this. Something stinks.

Back to footballing matters, the window is getting closer so I hope we have our strikers sorted. If Hall is fit he plays - part of the loan deal. So live or hate him get used to him. I'm hoping Power has a few irons in the fire. Cooper just sat on his backside waiting for things to happen.

As tight as the league is I'm not overly concerned. We won't go down and if Power gets things right we should be able to improve. Just need some experience and not to be reliant on Spurs and too many loans. Need cohesion.
The Italian's 10k a month consultancy wage is obviously quite weird. Essentially a very high wage on a freelance basis to have benefits, possibly tax. The buyers would have been aware of this. Rooney deal was a done deal which owners knew of and are trying to wriggle out of. The others are thought to be more minor in terms of cost but all combined its a big sum. But, they were aware of this when they opted to buy the club. It's no surprise. And it was never mentioned previously when talkin up how financial sound we are. Shah stalling yet again when pressed for answers. As these cases may go on for some time she has her tactics spot on. Can't see any reason why puishing an audit would affect our cases - in fact if the current lot are doing a good job it would show this. Something stinks. Back to footballing matters, the window is getting closer so I hope we have our strikers sorted. If Hall is fit he plays - part of the loan deal. So live or hate him get used to him. I'm hoping Power has a few irons in the fire. Cooper just sat on his backside waiting for things to happen. As tight as the league is I'm not overly concerned. We won't go down and if Power gets things right we should be able to improve. Just need some experience and not to be reliant on Spurs and too many loans. Need cohesion. stfc2012
  • Score: -1

9:47am Tue 21 Jan 14

Oi Den! says...

the don69 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle.

Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.
That's a bit harsh Den! Wray,Watkin and PDC must take a lot of the blame for this allowing PDC to squander loads of Blacks dosh,until Black finally said no more! and I don't blame the players there out for what they can get,they don't care about the clubs finances and can just move on,seems to me Wray and Watkin were PDC'S solders! whatever the Godfather wanted was given and put on Blacks tab!!!!!!!!!
Don, the point I'm making is that we were told we would get a full explanation that we could all understand. This was in November and December. These potential legal cases haven't suddenly come to light since then. If the legal advice has been received recently, what is the explanation for the inadequate "commentary" given in November/December? If the legal advice had already been given when we were given the waffle, why did Ms Shah not tell us then that information was being held back on the basis of that advice? The facts don't seem to support the much trumpeted policy of transparency.

As for the squandering of dosh, most fans encouraged it and lapped it up. Every time there was a suggestion that PDC might not get what he wanted, there was uproar in favour of He Who Could Do No Wrong. And now many of the PDC disciples are complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed all that money.
[quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle. Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.[/p][/quote]That's a bit harsh Den! Wray,Watkin and PDC must take a lot of the blame for this allowing PDC to squander loads of Blacks dosh,until Black finally said no more! and I don't blame the players there out for what they can get,they don't care about the clubs finances and can just move on,seems to me Wray and Watkin were PDC'S solders! whatever the Godfather wanted was given and put on Blacks tab!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Don, the point I'm making is that we were told we would get a full explanation that we could all understand. This was in November and December. These potential legal cases haven't suddenly come to light since then. If the legal advice has been received recently, what is the explanation for the inadequate "commentary" given in November/December? If the legal advice had already been given when we were given the waffle, why did Ms Shah not tell us then that information was being held back on the basis of that advice? The facts don't seem to support the much trumpeted policy of transparency. As for the squandering of dosh, most fans encouraged it and lapped it up. Every time there was a suggestion that PDC might not get what he wanted, there was uproar in favour of He Who Could Do No Wrong. And now many of the PDC disciples are complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed all that money. Oi Den!
  • Score: -1

10:00am Tue 21 Jan 14

the don69 says...

Oi Den! wrote:
the don69 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle.

Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.
That's a bit harsh Den! Wray,Watkin and PDC must take a lot of the blame for this allowing PDC to squander loads of Blacks dosh,until Black finally said no more! and I don't blame the players there out for what they can get,they don't care about the clubs finances and can just move on,seems to me Wray and Watkin were PDC'S solders! whatever the Godfather wanted was given and put on Blacks tab!!!!!!!!!
Don, the point I'm making is that we were told we would get a full explanation that we could all understand. This was in November and December. These potential legal cases haven't suddenly come to light since then. If the legal advice has been received recently, what is the explanation for the inadequate "commentary" given in November/December? If the legal advice had already been given when we were given the waffle, why did Ms Shah not tell us then that information was being held back on the basis of that advice? The facts don't seem to support the much trumpeted policy of transparency.

As for the squandering of dosh, most fans encouraged it and lapped it up. Every time there was a suggestion that PDC might not get what he wanted, there was uproar in favour of He Who Could Do No Wrong. And now many of the PDC disciples are complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed all that money.
Legalities are very complex Den,just ask Lord Rennard! as for our fans in uproar,Wray and Watkin should have been bigger than that,I'm sure Fitton would have,they were not up to the job Den.PDC could only manage with loads of dosh and according to the black cat fans,he wasted a small fortune up there and they say most of his players are Cr@p!!!!!!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle. Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.[/p][/quote]That's a bit harsh Den! Wray,Watkin and PDC must take a lot of the blame for this allowing PDC to squander loads of Blacks dosh,until Black finally said no more! and I don't blame the players there out for what they can get,they don't care about the clubs finances and can just move on,seems to me Wray and Watkin were PDC'S solders! whatever the Godfather wanted was given and put on Blacks tab!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Don, the point I'm making is that we were told we would get a full explanation that we could all understand. This was in November and December. These potential legal cases haven't suddenly come to light since then. If the legal advice has been received recently, what is the explanation for the inadequate "commentary" given in November/December? If the legal advice had already been given when we were given the waffle, why did Ms Shah not tell us then that information was being held back on the basis of that advice? The facts don't seem to support the much trumpeted policy of transparency. As for the squandering of dosh, most fans encouraged it and lapped it up. Every time there was a suggestion that PDC might not get what he wanted, there was uproar in favour of He Who Could Do No Wrong. And now many of the PDC disciples are complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed all that money.[/p][/quote]Legalities are very complex Den,just ask Lord Rennard! as for our fans in uproar,Wray and Watkin should have been bigger than that,I'm sure Fitton would have,they were not up to the job Den.PDC could only manage with loads of dosh and according to the black cat fans,he wasted a small fortune up there and they say most of his players are Cr@p!!!!!!!!!!! the don69
  • Score: 10

10:04am Tue 21 Jan 14

london paolo says...

Shah is completely out of her depth and it's time she left. She was only brought in by Jedda so she could sing his praises about how wonderful and transparent he was. She has nothing to offer.

An audit is just that. It's a detailed snapshot of the accounts and balance sheet at a fixed point in time. Usually that date is the financial year end, and the audited figures go into the annual report and sent to shareholders for approval. When did we last see the STFC accounts? Well over a year ago.

Most companies have issues going on at any particular time. Either they set aside provisions for exceptional items like the fiascos of Comazzi, Rooney and Spencer and show these in the accounts. Or they don't allow for them, and address them out of cash surplus when they event materialises. In any event, to prevent shareholders from seeing the accounts is unacceptable.

If they have no idea what the liabilities will be, then it makes you wonder if Power made a mistake by valuing the club at half a million when he bought Jedda's £1 stake for £300,000.

Even if Shah wants to pretend that shareholders should not see the accounts until these variables are known, she could at least provide the patronising 'commentary' on the other aspects that people are interested in. However, the audit was probably dated early 2013 and so are unlikely to reveal any financial manoeuvres that Jedda and the pikes might have taken the club for, e.g. consultancy fees, 'agents' fees and the concerts. So far that reason I'm not holding my breath.
Shah is completely out of her depth and it's time she left. She was only brought in by Jedda so she could sing his praises about how wonderful and transparent he was. She has nothing to offer. An audit is just that. It's a detailed snapshot of the accounts and balance sheet at a fixed point in time. Usually that date is the financial year end, and the audited figures go into the annual report and sent to shareholders for approval. When did we last see the STFC accounts? Well over a year ago. Most companies have issues going on at any particular time. Either they set aside provisions for exceptional items like the fiascos of Comazzi, Rooney and Spencer and show these in the accounts. Or they don't allow for them, and address them out of cash surplus when they event materialises. In any event, to prevent shareholders from seeing the accounts is unacceptable. If they have no idea what the liabilities will be, then it makes you wonder if Power made a mistake by valuing the club at half a million when he bought Jedda's £1 stake for £300,000. Even if Shah wants to pretend that shareholders should not see the accounts until these variables are known, she could at least provide the patronising 'commentary' on the other aspects that people are interested in. However, the audit was probably dated early 2013 and so are unlikely to reveal any financial manoeuvres that Jedda and the pikes might have taken the club for, e.g. consultancy fees, 'agents' fees and the concerts. So far that reason I'm not holding my breath. london paolo
  • Score: 2

10:07am Tue 21 Jan 14

Wilesy says...

Fair enough in keeping data under wraps due to the legal cases, but why promise the summary a few months ago the cases were ongoing then....and why wait until months after the promise to make a stalling statement.

Rooney well we may as well have bitten the bullet and kept him sounds like he has a good case and we will paying out so could have got something for our money. Might have meant no Ranger and someone else but he was the pick of the forwards last year imo. Can't blame Rooney - if someone gave me a winning lottery ticket then months later asked for it back I know what I would say!

Comazzi surely by going to prison means we can get out of that, he can't do too much consultancy from behind bars.

Spencer must have rhino skin hasn't he milked the club enough? He should be paying back his hefty cut for some of the crocks and dross he brought in not asking for more. How many really good players did we actually bring to the club during his time? Wes and Ward but who else? To be fair some looked good on paper like Roberts Collins and Williams but didn't live up to expectations on the pitch.
Fair enough in keeping data under wraps due to the legal cases, but why promise the summary a few months ago the cases were ongoing then....and why wait until months after the promise to make a stalling statement. Rooney well we may as well have bitten the bullet and kept him sounds like he has a good case and we will paying out so could have got something for our money. Might have meant no Ranger and someone else but he was the pick of the forwards last year imo. Can't blame Rooney - if someone gave me a winning lottery ticket then months later asked for it back I know what I would say! Comazzi surely by going to prison means we can get out of that, he can't do too much consultancy from behind bars. Spencer must have rhino skin hasn't he milked the club enough? He should be paying back his hefty cut for some of the crocks and dross he brought in not asking for more. How many really good players did we actually bring to the club during his time? Wes and Ward but who else? To be fair some looked good on paper like Roberts Collins and Williams but didn't live up to expectations on the pitch. Wilesy
  • Score: 5

10:07am Tue 21 Jan 14

Chish and Fips says...

Oi Den! wrote:
the don69 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle.

Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.
That's a bit harsh Den! Wray,Watkin and PDC must take a lot of the blame for this allowing PDC to squander loads of Blacks dosh,until Black finally said no more! and I don't blame the players there out for what they can get,they don't care about the clubs finances and can just move on,seems to me Wray and Watkin were PDC'S solders! whatever the Godfather wanted was given and put on Blacks tab!!!!!!!!!
Don, the point I'm making is that we were told we would get a full explanation that we could all understand. This was in November and December. These potential legal cases haven't suddenly come to light since then. If the legal advice has been received recently, what is the explanation for the inadequate "commentary" given in November/December? If the legal advice had already been given when we were given the waffle, why did Ms Shah not tell us then that information was being held back on the basis of that advice? The facts don't seem to support the much trumpeted policy of transparency.

As for the squandering of dosh, most fans encouraged it and lapped it up. Every time there was a suggestion that PDC might not get what he wanted, there was uproar in favour of He Who Could Do No Wrong. And now many of the PDC disciples are complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed all that money.
Yes I think we were all sucked in with the scarf waving- touchline performances and after match entertainment speeches - but little did we know the total cost and demands of this at the time, and how fed up the purse holders were of this.
As some say - it was good and we got promotion but flashing the cash around did that ... now its coming home to roost.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle. Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.[/p][/quote]That's a bit harsh Den! Wray,Watkin and PDC must take a lot of the blame for this allowing PDC to squander loads of Blacks dosh,until Black finally said no more! and I don't blame the players there out for what they can get,they don't care about the clubs finances and can just move on,seems to me Wray and Watkin were PDC'S solders! whatever the Godfather wanted was given and put on Blacks tab!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Don, the point I'm making is that we were told we would get a full explanation that we could all understand. This was in November and December. These potential legal cases haven't suddenly come to light since then. If the legal advice has been received recently, what is the explanation for the inadequate "commentary" given in November/December? If the legal advice had already been given when we were given the waffle, why did Ms Shah not tell us then that information was being held back on the basis of that advice? The facts don't seem to support the much trumpeted policy of transparency. As for the squandering of dosh, most fans encouraged it and lapped it up. Every time there was a suggestion that PDC might not get what he wanted, there was uproar in favour of He Who Could Do No Wrong. And now many of the PDC disciples are complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed all that money.[/p][/quote]Yes I think we were all sucked in with the scarf waving- touchline performances and after match entertainment speeches - but little did we know the total cost and demands of this at the time, and how fed up the purse holders were of this. As some say - it was good and we got promotion but flashing the cash around did that ... now its coming home to roost. Chish and Fips
  • Score: 6

10:08am Tue 21 Jan 14

london paolo says...

Oi Den! wrote:
The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle.

Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.
Actually, has anyone tried ripping off that Shah latex suit and mask to see if it is in fact Jedda underneath? He would have had to have lost a lot of weight, although as someone points out, the karaoke photograph is pretty old now and Shah could have bulked up since then. It would help Jedda get round his supposed 'ban' from the County Ground.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle. Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.[/p][/quote]Actually, has anyone tried ripping off that Shah latex suit and mask to see if it is in fact Jedda underneath? He would have had to have lost a lot of weight, although as someone points out, the karaoke photograph is pretty old now and Shah could have bulked up since then. It would help Jedda get round his supposed 'ban' from the County Ground. london paolo
  • Score: -3

10:34am Tue 21 Jan 14

lifelong red says...

Not to clued up on legal procedures, but I do know they can drag on for ages- more worry for our fans to endure. So may I suggest here some form of fan representation on the board , I know lee power has already said no to this ,but I do think he should reconsider ,after all we are the ones who stand in all winds and weathers to cheer the team ,and for the ones who travel miles on a cold winters night sometimes to watch dismal performances - in fact we are the real investors - the life blood of the club .So ,Mr Power - when these present issues are finally resolved , please reconsider , I firmly believe that we as fans have a right to know the general health of our club behind scenes .So please Mr Power give us representation
Not to clued up on legal procedures, but I do know they can drag on for ages- more worry for our fans to endure. So may I suggest here some form of fan representation on the board , I know lee power has already said no to this ,but I do think he should reconsider ,after all we are the ones who stand in all winds and weathers to cheer the team ,and for the ones who travel miles on a cold winters night sometimes to watch dismal performances - in fact we are the real investors - the life blood of the club .So ,Mr Power - when these present issues are finally resolved , please reconsider , I firmly believe that we as fans have a right to know the general health of our club behind scenes .So please Mr Power give us representation lifelong red
  • Score: -3

10:40am Tue 21 Jan 14

The Jockster says...

MarksDad wrote:
Oh look a whole page of my favorite doom and gloom merchants!

The thought of reading your made up , over zealous tripe fills me with horror, so I guess I'll have to do what the sane majority do....ignore you all.

Enjoy yourselves in your sad worlds.

COYR
If it means that you won't be posting then that will be a bonus to us all. I notice you didn't have the guts to respond in an adult fashion to me and the other posters who criticised your rant about me " changing the record "(Cooper happy with transfer policy thread) then that indeed is a bonus.
To demonstrate your true colours you have once again just insulted other posters rather than add anything to the debate. Hopefully if it is your intention to refrain from posting then that is a bonus for the rest of the contributors IMO.
[quote][p][bold]MarksDad[/bold] wrote: Oh look a whole page of my favorite doom and gloom merchants! The thought of reading your made up , over zealous tripe fills me with horror, so I guess I'll have to do what the sane majority do....ignore you all. Enjoy yourselves in your sad worlds. COYR[/p][/quote]If it means that you won't be posting then that will be a bonus to us all. I notice you didn't have the guts to respond in an adult fashion to me and the other posters who criticised your rant about me " changing the record "(Cooper happy with transfer policy thread) then that indeed is a bonus. To demonstrate your true colours you have once again just insulted other posters rather than add anything to the debate. Hopefully if it is your intention to refrain from posting then that is a bonus for the rest of the contributors IMO. The Jockster
  • Score: 3

10:44am Tue 21 Jan 14

Redgollum says...

I don't understand any of this legal business. The only people who make money out of it are the lawyers. It is almost 50 years to the day that I went to my first Town game. Football was simple then. You signed players & then played them or sold them on. No agents involved. The manager was responsible for the signings, not an owner. He obviously had to get authority from the directors to spend any money.

If they turned out to be carp, then they were fired off.

In my years of working, if I underperformed, I would have expected the same.

Someone has to stand up & say 'you were not fit for purpose, so on your bike'

The fact that some moron gave these guys such huge wages means that they can afford the litigation costs. I couldn't when I was made redundant.
I don't understand any of this legal business. The only people who make money out of it are the lawyers. It is almost 50 years to the day that I went to my first Town game. Football was simple then. You signed players & then played them or sold them on. No agents involved. The manager was responsible for the signings, not an owner. He obviously had to get authority from the directors to spend any money. If they turned out to be carp, then they were fired off. In my years of working, if I underperformed, I would have expected the same. Someone has to stand up & say 'you were not fit for purpose, so on your bike' The fact that some moron gave these guys such huge wages means that they can afford the litigation costs. I couldn't when I was made redundant. Redgollum
  • Score: 4

10:44am Tue 21 Jan 14

The Jockster says...

Chish and Fips wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
the don69 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle.

Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.
That's a bit harsh Den! Wray,Watkin and PDC must take a lot of the blame for this allowing PDC to squander loads of Blacks dosh,until Black finally said no more! and I don't blame the players there out for what they can get,they don't care about the clubs finances and can just move on,seems to me Wray and Watkin were PDC'S solders! whatever the Godfather wanted was given and put on Blacks tab!!!!!!!!!
Don, the point I'm making is that we were told we would get a full explanation that we could all understand. This was in November and December. These potential legal cases haven't suddenly come to light since then. If the legal advice has been received recently, what is the explanation for the inadequate "commentary" given in November/December? If the legal advice had already been given when we were given the waffle, why did Ms Shah not tell us then that information was being held back on the basis of that advice? The facts don't seem to support the much trumpeted policy of transparency.

As for the squandering of dosh, most fans encouraged it and lapped it up. Every time there was a suggestion that PDC might not get what he wanted, there was uproar in favour of He Who Could Do No Wrong. And now many of the PDC disciples are complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed all that money.
Yes I think we were all sucked in with the scarf waving- touchline performances and after match entertainment speeches - but little did we know the total cost and demands of this at the time, and how fed up the purse holders were of this.
As some say - it was good and we got promotion but flashing the cash around did that ... now its coming home to roost.
Well you weren't sucked in were you? You weren't there!
[quote][p][bold]Chish and Fips[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle. Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.[/p][/quote]That's a bit harsh Den! Wray,Watkin and PDC must take a lot of the blame for this allowing PDC to squander loads of Blacks dosh,until Black finally said no more! and I don't blame the players there out for what they can get,they don't care about the clubs finances and can just move on,seems to me Wray and Watkin were PDC'S solders! whatever the Godfather wanted was given and put on Blacks tab!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Don, the point I'm making is that we were told we would get a full explanation that we could all understand. This was in November and December. These potential legal cases haven't suddenly come to light since then. If the legal advice has been received recently, what is the explanation for the inadequate "commentary" given in November/December? If the legal advice had already been given when we were given the waffle, why did Ms Shah not tell us then that information was being held back on the basis of that advice? The facts don't seem to support the much trumpeted policy of transparency. As for the squandering of dosh, most fans encouraged it and lapped it up. Every time there was a suggestion that PDC might not get what he wanted, there was uproar in favour of He Who Could Do No Wrong. And now many of the PDC disciples are complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed all that money.[/p][/quote]Yes I think we were all sucked in with the scarf waving- touchline performances and after match entertainment speeches - but little did we know the total cost and demands of this at the time, and how fed up the purse holders were of this. As some say - it was good and we got promotion but flashing the cash around did that ... now its coming home to roost.[/p][/quote]Well you weren't sucked in were you? You weren't there! The Jockster
  • Score: -3

10:54am Tue 21 Jan 14

Oi Den! says...

the don69 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
the don69 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle.

Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.
That's a bit harsh Den! Wray,Watkin and PDC must take a lot of the blame for this allowing PDC to squander loads of Blacks dosh,until Black finally said no more! and I don't blame the players there out for what they can get,they don't care about the clubs finances and can just move on,seems to me Wray and Watkin were PDC'S solders! whatever the Godfather wanted was given and put on Blacks tab!!!!!!!!!
Don, the point I'm making is that we were told we would get a full explanation that we could all understand. This was in November and December. These potential legal cases haven't suddenly come to light since then. If the legal advice has been received recently, what is the explanation for the inadequate "commentary" given in November/December? If the legal advice had already been given when we were given the waffle, why did Ms Shah not tell us then that information was being held back on the basis of that advice? The facts don't seem to support the much trumpeted policy of transparency.

As for the squandering of dosh, most fans encouraged it and lapped it up. Every time there was a suggestion that PDC might not get what he wanted, there was uproar in favour of He Who Could Do No Wrong. And now many of the PDC disciples are complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed all that money.
Legalities are very complex Den,just ask Lord Rennard! as for our fans in uproar,Wray and Watkin should have been bigger than that,I'm sure Fitton would have,they were not up to the job Den.PDC could only manage with loads of dosh and according to the black cat fans,he wasted a small fortune up there and they say most of his players are Cr@p!!!!!!!!!!!
And if Black/Wray/Watkins had refused Di Canio's demands, we all know he would have walked out in a huff and the club would have been slaughtered for it. In any case Don, this is all a bit melodramatic. The club was acquired for a song and the "buyers" chose to take on all the contracts or, as it turns out, try to wriggle out of them. They knew what they were getting for their investment of £1.
[quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle. Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.[/p][/quote]That's a bit harsh Den! Wray,Watkin and PDC must take a lot of the blame for this allowing PDC to squander loads of Blacks dosh,until Black finally said no more! and I don't blame the players there out for what they can get,they don't care about the clubs finances and can just move on,seems to me Wray and Watkin were PDC'S solders! whatever the Godfather wanted was given and put on Blacks tab!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Don, the point I'm making is that we were told we would get a full explanation that we could all understand. This was in November and December. These potential legal cases haven't suddenly come to light since then. If the legal advice has been received recently, what is the explanation for the inadequate "commentary" given in November/December? If the legal advice had already been given when we were given the waffle, why did Ms Shah not tell us then that information was being held back on the basis of that advice? The facts don't seem to support the much trumpeted policy of transparency. As for the squandering of dosh, most fans encouraged it and lapped it up. Every time there was a suggestion that PDC might not get what he wanted, there was uproar in favour of He Who Could Do No Wrong. And now many of the PDC disciples are complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed all that money.[/p][/quote]Legalities are very complex Den,just ask Lord Rennard! as for our fans in uproar,Wray and Watkin should have been bigger than that,I'm sure Fitton would have,they were not up to the job Den.PDC could only manage with loads of dosh and according to the black cat fans,he wasted a small fortune up there and they say most of his players are Cr@p!!!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]And if Black/Wray/Watkins had refused Di Canio's demands, we all know he would have walked out in a huff and the club would have been slaughtered for it. In any case Don, this is all a bit melodramatic. The club was acquired for a song and the "buyers" chose to take on all the contracts or, as it turns out, try to wriggle out of them. They knew what they were getting for their investment of £1. Oi Den!
  • Score: 9

11:06am Tue 21 Jan 14

harley red says...

Cough up Power you have no other purpose , if you don't want to do that p£?s off
Cough up Power you have no other purpose , if you don't want to do that p£?s off harley red
  • Score: -15

11:28am Tue 21 Jan 14

Chish and Fips says...

The Jockster wrote:
Chish and Fips wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
the don69 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle.

Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.
That's a bit harsh Den! Wray,Watkin and PDC must take a lot of the blame for this allowing PDC to squander loads of Blacks dosh,until Black finally said no more! and I don't blame the players there out for what they can get,they don't care about the clubs finances and can just move on,seems to me Wray and Watkin were PDC'S solders! whatever the Godfather wanted was given and put on Blacks tab!!!!!!!!!
Don, the point I'm making is that we were told we would get a full explanation that we could all understand. This was in November and December. These potential legal cases haven't suddenly come to light since then. If the legal advice has been received recently, what is the explanation for the inadequate "commentary" given in November/December? If the legal advice had already been given when we were given the waffle, why did Ms Shah not tell us then that information was being held back on the basis of that advice? The facts don't seem to support the much trumpeted policy of transparency.

As for the squandering of dosh, most fans encouraged it and lapped it up. Every time there was a suggestion that PDC might not get what he wanted, there was uproar in favour of He Who Could Do No Wrong. And now many of the PDC disciples are complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed all that money.
Yes I think we were all sucked in with the scarf waving- touchline performances and after match entertainment speeches - but little did we know the total cost and demands of this at the time, and how fed up the purse holders were of this.
As some say - it was good and we got promotion but flashing the cash around did that ... now its coming home to roost.
Well you weren't sucked in were you? You weren't there!
Just to correct you Jock yet again !!! ....this is getting a quite regular lately... I WAS, ... not all season admittedly but quite a few games -- so wind yer neck back in again ;o)
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chish and Fips[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle. Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.[/p][/quote]That's a bit harsh Den! Wray,Watkin and PDC must take a lot of the blame for this allowing PDC to squander loads of Blacks dosh,until Black finally said no more! and I don't blame the players there out for what they can get,they don't care about the clubs finances and can just move on,seems to me Wray and Watkin were PDC'S solders! whatever the Godfather wanted was given and put on Blacks tab!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Don, the point I'm making is that we were told we would get a full explanation that we could all understand. This was in November and December. These potential legal cases haven't suddenly come to light since then. If the legal advice has been received recently, what is the explanation for the inadequate "commentary" given in November/December? If the legal advice had already been given when we were given the waffle, why did Ms Shah not tell us then that information was being held back on the basis of that advice? The facts don't seem to support the much trumpeted policy of transparency. As for the squandering of dosh, most fans encouraged it and lapped it up. Every time there was a suggestion that PDC might not get what he wanted, there was uproar in favour of He Who Could Do No Wrong. And now many of the PDC disciples are complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed all that money.[/p][/quote]Yes I think we were all sucked in with the scarf waving- touchline performances and after match entertainment speeches - but little did we know the total cost and demands of this at the time, and how fed up the purse holders were of this. As some say - it was good and we got promotion but flashing the cash around did that ... now its coming home to roost.[/p][/quote]Well you weren't sucked in were you? You weren't there![/p][/quote]Just to correct you Jock yet again !!! ....this is getting a quite regular lately... I WAS, ... not all season admittedly but quite a few games -- so wind yer neck back in again ;o) Chish and Fips
  • Score: 4

11:28am Tue 21 Jan 14

Steve. Brentford says...

MarksDad wrote:
Oh look a whole page of my favorite doom and gloom merchants!

The thought of reading your made up , over zealous tripe fills me with horror, so I guess I'll have to do what the sane majority do....ignore you all.

Enjoy yourselves in your sad worlds.

COYR
Dont read it then,it really is that simple.


PS i know what you mean about over zealous tripe, i`ve just read your post!
[quote][p][bold]MarksDad[/bold] wrote: Oh look a whole page of my favorite doom and gloom merchants! The thought of reading your made up , over zealous tripe fills me with horror, so I guess I'll have to do what the sane majority do....ignore you all. Enjoy yourselves in your sad worlds. COYR[/p][/quote]Dont read it then,it really is that simple. PS i know what you mean about over zealous tripe, i`ve just read your post! Steve. Brentford
  • Score: 6

11:34am Tue 21 Jan 14

oz ashes says...

harley red wrote:
Cough up Power you have no other purpose , if you don't want to do that p£?s off
good post
so if power goes are you going to step in or anybody else
we go under and you will be called harley nobody
[quote][p][bold]harley red[/bold] wrote: Cough up Power you have no other purpose , if you don't want to do that p£?s off[/p][/quote]good post so if power goes are you going to step in or anybody else we go under and you will be called harley nobody oz ashes
  • Score: 10

11:38am Tue 21 Jan 14

Steve. Brentford says...

Redgollum wrote:
I don't understand any of this legal business. The only people who make money out of it are the lawyers. It is almost 50 years to the day that I went to my first Town game. Football was simple then. You signed players & then played them or sold them on. No agents involved. The manager was responsible for the signings, not an owner. He obviously had to get authority from the directors to spend any money.

If they turned out to be carp, then they were fired off.

In my years of working, if I underperformed, I would have expected the same.

Someone has to stand up & say 'you were not fit for purpose, so on your bike'

The fact that some moron gave these guys such huge wages means that they can afford the litigation costs. I couldn't when I was made redundant.
As a avid fisherman/carp fisherman i must say that getting rid due to them being carp was totally unfair and bias, other than that i agree :O)

PS if they were pike it would of been different!
[quote][p][bold]Redgollum[/bold] wrote: I don't understand any of this legal business. The only people who make money out of it are the lawyers. It is almost 50 years to the day that I went to my first Town game. Football was simple then. You signed players & then played them or sold them on. No agents involved. The manager was responsible for the signings, not an owner. He obviously had to get authority from the directors to spend any money. If they turned out to be carp, then they were fired off. In my years of working, if I underperformed, I would have expected the same. Someone has to stand up & say 'you were not fit for purpose, so on your bike' The fact that some moron gave these guys such huge wages means that they can afford the litigation costs. I couldn't when I was made redundant.[/p][/quote]As a avid fisherman/carp fisherman i must say that getting rid due to them being carp was totally unfair and bias, other than that i agree :O) PS if they were pike it would of been different! Steve. Brentford
  • Score: 1

11:48am Tue 21 Jan 14

the don69 says...

Oi Den! wrote:
the don69 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
the don69 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle.

Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.
That's a bit harsh Den! Wray,Watkin and PDC must take a lot of the blame for this allowing PDC to squander loads of Blacks dosh,until Black finally said no more! and I don't blame the players there out for what they can get,they don't care about the clubs finances and can just move on,seems to me Wray and Watkin were PDC'S solders! whatever the Godfather wanted was given and put on Blacks tab!!!!!!!!!
Don, the point I'm making is that we were told we would get a full explanation that we could all understand. This was in November and December. These potential legal cases haven't suddenly come to light since then. If the legal advice has been received recently, what is the explanation for the inadequate "commentary" given in November/December? If the legal advice had already been given when we were given the waffle, why did Ms Shah not tell us then that information was being held back on the basis of that advice? The facts don't seem to support the much trumpeted policy of transparency.

As for the squandering of dosh, most fans encouraged it and lapped it up. Every time there was a suggestion that PDC might not get what he wanted, there was uproar in favour of He Who Could Do No Wrong. And now many of the PDC disciples are complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed all that money.
Legalities are very complex Den,just ask Lord Rennard! as for our fans in uproar,Wray and Watkin should have been bigger than that,I'm sure Fitton would have,they were not up to the job Den.PDC could only manage with loads of dosh and according to the black cat fans,he wasted a small fortune up there and they say most of his players are Cr@p!!!!!!!!!!!
And if Black/Wray/Watkins had refused Di Canio's demands, we all know he would have walked out in a huff and the club would have been slaughtered for it. In any case Don, this is all a bit melodramatic. The club was acquired for a song and the "buyers" chose to take on all the contracts or, as it turns out, try to wriggle out of them. They knew what they were getting for their investment of £1.
That was your best friend Jedi boy who coughed up a quid of his ill-gotten gains lol, and don't forget Den without that quid we'd now be a Conference side,Lee has put in a fair amount and he's trying to sort the fecking mess PDC,Wray and Watkin left,I don't blame Black cause he did give £10m,but the other three took him for a mug!!!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle. Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.[/p][/quote]That's a bit harsh Den! Wray,Watkin and PDC must take a lot of the blame for this allowing PDC to squander loads of Blacks dosh,until Black finally said no more! and I don't blame the players there out for what they can get,they don't care about the clubs finances and can just move on,seems to me Wray and Watkin were PDC'S solders! whatever the Godfather wanted was given and put on Blacks tab!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Don, the point I'm making is that we were told we would get a full explanation that we could all understand. This was in November and December. These potential legal cases haven't suddenly come to light since then. If the legal advice has been received recently, what is the explanation for the inadequate "commentary" given in November/December? If the legal advice had already been given when we were given the waffle, why did Ms Shah not tell us then that information was being held back on the basis of that advice? The facts don't seem to support the much trumpeted policy of transparency. As for the squandering of dosh, most fans encouraged it and lapped it up. Every time there was a suggestion that PDC might not get what he wanted, there was uproar in favour of He Who Could Do No Wrong. And now many of the PDC disciples are complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed all that money.[/p][/quote]Legalities are very complex Den,just ask Lord Rennard! as for our fans in uproar,Wray and Watkin should have been bigger than that,I'm sure Fitton would have,they were not up to the job Den.PDC could only manage with loads of dosh and according to the black cat fans,he wasted a small fortune up there and they say most of his players are Cr@p!!!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]And if Black/Wray/Watkins had refused Di Canio's demands, we all know he would have walked out in a huff and the club would have been slaughtered for it. In any case Don, this is all a bit melodramatic. The club was acquired for a song and the "buyers" chose to take on all the contracts or, as it turns out, try to wriggle out of them. They knew what they were getting for their investment of £1.[/p][/quote]That was your best friend Jedi boy who coughed up a quid of his ill-gotten gains lol, and don't forget Den without that quid we'd now be a Conference side,Lee has put in a fair amount and he's trying to sort the fecking mess PDC,Wray and Watkin left,I don't blame Black cause he did give £10m,but the other three took him for a mug!!!!!!!! the don69
  • Score: 0

11:50am Tue 21 Jan 14

the don69 says...

Steve. Brentford wrote:
Redgollum wrote:
I don't understand any of this legal business. The only people who make money out of it are the lawyers. It is almost 50 years to the day that I went to my first Town game. Football was simple then. You signed players & then played them or sold them on. No agents involved. The manager was responsible for the signings, not an owner. He obviously had to get authority from the directors to spend any money.

If they turned out to be carp, then they were fired off.

In my years of working, if I underperformed, I would have expected the same.

Someone has to stand up & say 'you were not fit for purpose, so on your bike'

The fact that some moron gave these guys such huge wages means that they can afford the litigation costs. I couldn't when I was made redundant.
As a avid fisherman/carp fisherman i must say that getting rid due to them being carp was totally unfair and bias, other than that i agree :O)

PS if they were pike it would of been different!
Or even Sharks Steve lol!!
[quote][p][bold]Steve. Brentford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redgollum[/bold] wrote: I don't understand any of this legal business. The only people who make money out of it are the lawyers. It is almost 50 years to the day that I went to my first Town game. Football was simple then. You signed players & then played them or sold them on. No agents involved. The manager was responsible for the signings, not an owner. He obviously had to get authority from the directors to spend any money. If they turned out to be carp, then they were fired off. In my years of working, if I underperformed, I would have expected the same. Someone has to stand up & say 'you were not fit for purpose, so on your bike' The fact that some moron gave these guys such huge wages means that they can afford the litigation costs. I couldn't when I was made redundant.[/p][/quote]As a avid fisherman/carp fisherman i must say that getting rid due to them being carp was totally unfair and bias, other than that i agree :O) PS if they were pike it would of been different![/p][/quote]Or even Sharks Steve lol!! the don69
  • Score: 0

12:00pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Steve. Brentford says...

the don69 wrote:
Steve. Brentford wrote:
Redgollum wrote:
I don't understand any of this legal business. The only people who make money out of it are the lawyers. It is almost 50 years to the day that I went to my first Town game. Football was simple then. You signed players & then played them or sold them on. No agents involved. The manager was responsible for the signings, not an owner. He obviously had to get authority from the directors to spend any money.

If they turned out to be carp, then they were fired off.

In my years of working, if I underperformed, I would have expected the same.

Someone has to stand up & say 'you were not fit for purpose, so on your bike'

The fact that some moron gave these guys such huge wages means that they can afford the litigation costs. I couldn't when I was made redundant.
As a avid fisherman/carp fisherman i must say that getting rid due to them being carp was totally unfair and bias, other than that i agree :O)

PS if they were pike it would of been different!
Or even Sharks Steve lol!!
Haha we have had a few of them eh..
[quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve. Brentford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redgollum[/bold] wrote: I don't understand any of this legal business. The only people who make money out of it are the lawyers. It is almost 50 years to the day that I went to my first Town game. Football was simple then. You signed players & then played them or sold them on. No agents involved. The manager was responsible for the signings, not an owner. He obviously had to get authority from the directors to spend any money. If they turned out to be carp, then they were fired off. In my years of working, if I underperformed, I would have expected the same. Someone has to stand up & say 'you were not fit for purpose, so on your bike' The fact that some moron gave these guys such huge wages means that they can afford the litigation costs. I couldn't when I was made redundant.[/p][/quote]As a avid fisherman/carp fisherman i must say that getting rid due to them being carp was totally unfair and bias, other than that i agree :O) PS if they were pike it would of been different![/p][/quote]Or even Sharks Steve lol!![/p][/quote]Haha we have had a few of them eh.. Steve. Brentford
  • Score: 1

12:13pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Oxon-Red says...

Isn't now and the future more important than DiCanio/Wray/Fitton/
Black etc.

All that money a relegation, a promotion and where are we ?

I won't lie, I enjoyed the promotion, Paolo's passion and I didn't worry about the cash side. The events of the last year have however been eye opening.

Has money been set aside to pay for these cases should we lose them ? Maybe this is why we have had to rely on so many loanees and the funds for re-inforcements have been lacking.

Not worried about the past any more, it cannot be changed and whether Jed made a profit is unimportant now as we have a club.

What matters to me now is getting through these cases and getting the club on a firm foundation. Maybe then we can start to build with confidence. Maybe then Harley will see his wealthy backer and we can start the process all over again.

Most importantly though I believe the club needs to learn from past mistakes.

COYMR
Isn't now and the future more important than DiCanio/Wray/Fitton/ Black etc. All that money a relegation, a promotion and where are we ? I won't lie, I enjoyed the promotion, Paolo's passion and I didn't worry about the cash side. The events of the last year have however been eye opening. Has money been set aside to pay for these cases should we lose them ? Maybe this is why we have had to rely on so many loanees and the funds for re-inforcements have been lacking. Not worried about the past any more, it cannot be changed and whether Jed made a profit is unimportant now as we have a club. What matters to me now is getting through these cases and getting the club on a firm foundation. Maybe then we can start to build with confidence. Maybe then Harley will see his wealthy backer and we can start the process all over again. Most importantly though I believe the club needs to learn from past mistakes. COYMR Oxon-Red
  • Score: 6

12:20pm Tue 21 Jan 14

The Jockster says...

Chish and Fips wrote:
The Jockster wrote:
Chish and Fips wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
the don69 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle.

Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.
That's a bit harsh Den! Wray,Watkin and PDC must take a lot of the blame for this allowing PDC to squander loads of Blacks dosh,until Black finally said no more! and I don't blame the players there out for what they can get,they don't care about the clubs finances and can just move on,seems to me Wray and Watkin were PDC'S solders! whatever the Godfather wanted was given and put on Blacks tab!!!!!!!!!
Don, the point I'm making is that we were told we would get a full explanation that we could all understand. This was in November and December. These potential legal cases haven't suddenly come to light since then. If the legal advice has been received recently, what is the explanation for the inadequate "commentary" given in November/December? If the legal advice had already been given when we were given the waffle, why did Ms Shah not tell us then that information was being held back on the basis of that advice? The facts don't seem to support the much trumpeted policy of transparency.

As for the squandering of dosh, most fans encouraged it and lapped it up. Every time there was a suggestion that PDC might not get what he wanted, there was uproar in favour of He Who Could Do No Wrong. And now many of the PDC disciples are complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed all that money.
Yes I think we were all sucked in with the scarf waving- touchline performances and after match entertainment speeches - but little did we know the total cost and demands of this at the time, and how fed up the purse holders were of this.
As some say - it was good and we got promotion but flashing the cash around did that ... now its coming home to roost.
Well you weren't sucked in were you? You weren't there!
Just to correct you Jock yet again !!! ....this is getting a quite regular lately... I WAS, ... not all season admittedly but quite a few games -- so wind yer neck back in again ;o)
Ok well done you - but not this season eh?
[quote][p][bold]Chish and Fips[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chish and Fips[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle. Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.[/p][/quote]That's a bit harsh Den! Wray,Watkin and PDC must take a lot of the blame for this allowing PDC to squander loads of Blacks dosh,until Black finally said no more! and I don't blame the players there out for what they can get,they don't care about the clubs finances and can just move on,seems to me Wray and Watkin were PDC'S solders! whatever the Godfather wanted was given and put on Blacks tab!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Don, the point I'm making is that we were told we would get a full explanation that we could all understand. This was in November and December. These potential legal cases haven't suddenly come to light since then. If the legal advice has been received recently, what is the explanation for the inadequate "commentary" given in November/December? If the legal advice had already been given when we were given the waffle, why did Ms Shah not tell us then that information was being held back on the basis of that advice? The facts don't seem to support the much trumpeted policy of transparency. As for the squandering of dosh, most fans encouraged it and lapped it up. Every time there was a suggestion that PDC might not get what he wanted, there was uproar in favour of He Who Could Do No Wrong. And now many of the PDC disciples are complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed all that money.[/p][/quote]Yes I think we were all sucked in with the scarf waving- touchline performances and after match entertainment speeches - but little did we know the total cost and demands of this at the time, and how fed up the purse holders were of this. As some say - it was good and we got promotion but flashing the cash around did that ... now its coming home to roost.[/p][/quote]Well you weren't sucked in were you? You weren't there![/p][/quote]Just to correct you Jock yet again !!! ....this is getting a quite regular lately... I WAS, ... not all season admittedly but quite a few games -- so wind yer neck back in again ;o)[/p][/quote]Ok well done you - but not this season eh? The Jockster
  • Score: -5

12:25pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Oi Den! says...

the don69 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
the don69 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
the don69 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle.

Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.
That's a bit harsh Den! Wray,Watkin and PDC must take a lot of the blame for this allowing PDC to squander loads of Blacks dosh,until Black finally said no more! and I don't blame the players there out for what they can get,they don't care about the clubs finances and can just move on,seems to me Wray and Watkin were PDC'S solders! whatever the Godfather wanted was given and put on Blacks tab!!!!!!!!!
Don, the point I'm making is that we were told we would get a full explanation that we could all understand. This was in November and December. These potential legal cases haven't suddenly come to light since then. If the legal advice has been received recently, what is the explanation for the inadequate "commentary" given in November/December? If the legal advice had already been given when we were given the waffle, why did Ms Shah not tell us then that information was being held back on the basis of that advice? The facts don't seem to support the much trumpeted policy of transparency.

As for the squandering of dosh, most fans encouraged it and lapped it up. Every time there was a suggestion that PDC might not get what he wanted, there was uproar in favour of He Who Could Do No Wrong. And now many of the PDC disciples are complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed all that money.
Legalities are very complex Den,just ask Lord Rennard! as for our fans in uproar,Wray and Watkin should have been bigger than that,I'm sure Fitton would have,they were not up to the job Den.PDC could only manage with loads of dosh and according to the black cat fans,he wasted a small fortune up there and they say most of his players are Cr@p!!!!!!!!!!!
And if Black/Wray/Watkins had refused Di Canio's demands, we all know he would have walked out in a huff and the club would have been slaughtered for it. In any case Don, this is all a bit melodramatic. The club was acquired for a song and the "buyers" chose to take on all the contracts or, as it turns out, try to wriggle out of them. They knew what they were getting for their investment of £1.
That was your best friend Jedi boy who coughed up a quid of his ill-gotten gains lol, and don't forget Den without that quid we'd now be a Conference side,Lee has put in a fair amount and he's trying to sort the fecking mess PDC,Wray and Watkin left,I don't blame Black cause he did give £10m,but the other three took him for a mug!!!!!!!!
Don, I agree with most of that, except that I doubt Watkins had much say in the spending. He'd have been acting on Wray's instructions. Despite the undeniable c0ck-ups they made, I would welcome Fitton and Wray back with open arms. I think they both cared about the club and I believe both would have learned a lot from their mistakes. Fitton got a roasting for reining in the spending and Wray (eventually) got a roasting for spending too much. Both thought they were doing the right thing for the club and neither deserved the stick they got.

I don't accept that McCrory saved the club. If it hadn't been him "buying" it, it would have been somebody else - and that somebody else might have made an investment in the club rather than making a fast buck out of it. I just can't believe nobody else would have taken on a club that was probably in better nick than most in the Football League. McCrory and his merry men were described as the "preferred bidder", probably because they pulled the wool over the eyes of Patey in the same way they tried to pull it over the eyes of Di Canio, MacDonald and the fans.

Yes, I'm sure Power has put money into the club. We're all grateful for that. He had plenty of time to know what he was getting into though. If he finds that he has to finance the club's contractual obligations, so be it. That's what he's signed up to do.

What brasses me off, Don, is that we've had almost a year of bullsh!t now. I thought McCrory's departure might have signalled a real change but it seems to have made no difference. The fans are still being taken for fools, as shown by Ms Shah's latest non-statement. For the first time in many years, I'm considering not renewing my season ticket. Cue "good riddance, the club doesn't need your sort of support" posts.
[quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle. Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.[/p][/quote]That's a bit harsh Den! Wray,Watkin and PDC must take a lot of the blame for this allowing PDC to squander loads of Blacks dosh,until Black finally said no more! and I don't blame the players there out for what they can get,they don't care about the clubs finances and can just move on,seems to me Wray and Watkin were PDC'S solders! whatever the Godfather wanted was given and put on Blacks tab!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Don, the point I'm making is that we were told we would get a full explanation that we could all understand. This was in November and December. These potential legal cases haven't suddenly come to light since then. If the legal advice has been received recently, what is the explanation for the inadequate "commentary" given in November/December? If the legal advice had already been given when we were given the waffle, why did Ms Shah not tell us then that information was being held back on the basis of that advice? The facts don't seem to support the much trumpeted policy of transparency. As for the squandering of dosh, most fans encouraged it and lapped it up. Every time there was a suggestion that PDC might not get what he wanted, there was uproar in favour of He Who Could Do No Wrong. And now many of the PDC disciples are complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed all that money.[/p][/quote]Legalities are very complex Den,just ask Lord Rennard! as for our fans in uproar,Wray and Watkin should have been bigger than that,I'm sure Fitton would have,they were not up to the job Den.PDC could only manage with loads of dosh and according to the black cat fans,he wasted a small fortune up there and they say most of his players are Cr@p!!!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]And if Black/Wray/Watkins had refused Di Canio's demands, we all know he would have walked out in a huff and the club would have been slaughtered for it. In any case Don, this is all a bit melodramatic. The club was acquired for a song and the "buyers" chose to take on all the contracts or, as it turns out, try to wriggle out of them. They knew what they were getting for their investment of £1.[/p][/quote]That was your best friend Jedi boy who coughed up a quid of his ill-gotten gains lol, and don't forget Den without that quid we'd now be a Conference side,Lee has put in a fair amount and he's trying to sort the fecking mess PDC,Wray and Watkin left,I don't blame Black cause he did give £10m,but the other three took him for a mug!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Don, I agree with most of that, except that I doubt Watkins had much say in the spending. He'd have been acting on Wray's instructions. Despite the undeniable c0ck-ups they made, I would welcome Fitton and Wray back with open arms. I think they both cared about the club and I believe both would have learned a lot from their mistakes. Fitton got a roasting for reining in the spending and Wray (eventually) got a roasting for spending too much. Both thought they were doing the right thing for the club and neither deserved the stick they got. I don't accept that McCrory saved the club. If it hadn't been him "buying" it, it would have been somebody else - and that somebody else might have made an investment in the club rather than making a fast buck out of it. I just can't believe nobody else would have taken on a club that was probably in better nick than most in the Football League. McCrory and his merry men were described as the "preferred bidder", probably because they pulled the wool over the eyes of Patey in the same way they tried to pull it over the eyes of Di Canio, MacDonald and the fans. Yes, I'm sure Power has put money into the club. We're all grateful for that. He had plenty of time to know what he was getting into though. If he finds that he has to finance the club's contractual obligations, so be it. That's what he's signed up to do. What brasses me off, Don, is that we've had almost a year of bullsh!t now. I thought McCrory's departure might have signalled a real change but it seems to have made no difference. The fans are still being taken for fools, as shown by Ms Shah's latest non-statement. For the first time in many years, I'm considering not renewing my season ticket. Cue "good riddance, the club doesn't need your sort of support" posts. Oi Den!
  • Score: -3

12:26pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Old-Stager, Hilperton says...

harley red wrote:
Cough up Power you have no other purpose , if you don't want to do that p£?s off
I wish you would !
[quote][p][bold]harley red[/bold] wrote: Cough up Power you have no other purpose , if you don't want to do that p£?s off[/p][/quote]I wish you would ! Old-Stager, Hilperton
  • Score: 20

12:35pm Tue 21 Jan 14

old town robin says...

Wilesy wrote:
Fair enough in keeping data under wraps due to the legal cases, but why promise the summary a few months ago the cases were ongoing then....and why wait until months after the promise to make a stalling statement.

Rooney well we may as well have bitten the bullet and kept him sounds like he has a good case and we will paying out so could have got something for our money. Might have meant no Ranger and someone else but he was the pick of the forwards last year imo. Can't blame Rooney - if someone gave me a winning lottery ticket then months later asked for it back I know what I would say!

Comazzi surely by going to prison means we can get out of that, he can't do too much consultancy from behind bars.

Spencer must have rhino skin hasn't he milked the club enough? He should be paying back his hefty cut for some of the crocks and dross he brought in not asking for more. How many really good players did we actually bring to the club during his time? Wes and Ward but who else? To be fair some looked good on paper like Roberts Collins and Williams but didn't live up to expectations on the pitch.
Wilesy, A couple of points from your post. I can only go on what I've read of the 3 ongoing writs as I have no more inside knowledge or legal background to have a sound opinion of the legality of the cases than anyone else outside of the clubs inner sanctuary.

What I have read is that at least 2 of the cases are trying to be resolved with out of court settlements, if that is the case, then one would assume money has been put aside for this.

With regards to Rooney I don't understand how a player can sign for another club whilst registered with another. No matte,r I don't dispute there maybe a case to answer, I believe Jedi was contesting the contract as signatures were not forthcoming from Rooney's side. On top of that Rooney has now signed for Oldham and is receiving a salary, I therefore would think even if he wins his case any settlement would take this into account he is not entirely out of pocket

Comazzi has or will be found guilty of corruption, any defence from our side will/would be based on this. What actual consultancy he ever did probably amounts to zero, so it is most likely the consultancy was a tax break for the way they wanted to get an early settlement on his contract. Unbelievable he commanded the salary he was signed on, IMO he is down there as one of the worst players ever to wear the shirt.

I read a couple of weeks ago Spencer was paid a monthly fee which was not based on commission, hence the reason why PDC wanted him involved in board meetings as a consultant for the club rather than an agent. If true I can only speculate that as a consultant that did not terminate with the departure of Black and PDC, I would be willing to bet that Jedi did not continue to pay has monthly fee and we now find Lee having to settle with him for the poor management of others.

As much as we would all like to know the ins and outs of what's going on, I can't see the club making any disclosures whilst there are still issues and even when things are settled, it could still be the case we will never hear the truth of the rights and wrongs if it's not in the clubs interest.
[quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: Fair enough in keeping data under wraps due to the legal cases, but why promise the summary a few months ago the cases were ongoing then....and why wait until months after the promise to make a stalling statement. Rooney well we may as well have bitten the bullet and kept him sounds like he has a good case and we will paying out so could have got something for our money. Might have meant no Ranger and someone else but he was the pick of the forwards last year imo. Can't blame Rooney - if someone gave me a winning lottery ticket then months later asked for it back I know what I would say! Comazzi surely by going to prison means we can get out of that, he can't do too much consultancy from behind bars. Spencer must have rhino skin hasn't he milked the club enough? He should be paying back his hefty cut for some of the crocks and dross he brought in not asking for more. How many really good players did we actually bring to the club during his time? Wes and Ward but who else? To be fair some looked good on paper like Roberts Collins and Williams but didn't live up to expectations on the pitch.[/p][/quote]Wilesy, A couple of points from your post. I can only go on what I've read of the 3 ongoing writs as I have no more inside knowledge or legal background to have a sound opinion of the legality of the cases than anyone else outside of the clubs inner sanctuary. What I have read is that at least 2 of the cases are trying to be resolved with out of court settlements, if that is the case, then one would assume money has been put aside for this. With regards to Rooney I don't understand how a player can sign for another club whilst registered with another. No matte,r I don't dispute there maybe a case to answer, I believe Jedi was contesting the contract as signatures were not forthcoming from Rooney's side. On top of that Rooney has now signed for Oldham and is receiving a salary, I therefore would think even if he wins his case any settlement would take this into account he is not entirely out of pocket Comazzi has or will be found guilty of corruption, any defence from our side will/would be based on this. What actual consultancy he ever did probably amounts to zero, so it is most likely the consultancy was a tax break for the way they wanted to get an early settlement on his contract. Unbelievable he commanded the salary he was signed on, IMO he is down there as one of the worst players ever to wear the shirt. I read a couple of weeks ago Spencer was paid a monthly fee which was not based on commission, hence the reason why PDC wanted him involved in board meetings as a consultant for the club rather than an agent. If true I can only speculate that as a consultant that did not terminate with the departure of Black and PDC, I would be willing to bet that Jedi did not continue to pay has monthly fee and we now find Lee having to settle with him for the poor management of others. As much as we would all like to know the ins and outs of what's going on, I can't see the club making any disclosures whilst there are still issues and even when things are settled, it could still be the case we will never hear the truth of the rights and wrongs if it's not in the clubs interest. old town robin
  • Score: 6

12:58pm Tue 21 Jan 14

the don69 says...

Oi Den! wrote:
the don69 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
the don69 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
the don69 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle.

Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.
That's a bit harsh Den! Wray,Watkin and PDC must take a lot of the blame for this allowing PDC to squander loads of Blacks dosh,until Black finally said no more! and I don't blame the players there out for what they can get,they don't care about the clubs finances and can just move on,seems to me Wray and Watkin were PDC'S solders! whatever the Godfather wanted was given and put on Blacks tab!!!!!!!!!
Don, the point I'm making is that we were told we would get a full explanation that we could all understand. This was in November and December. These potential legal cases haven't suddenly come to light since then. If the legal advice has been received recently, what is the explanation for the inadequate "commentary" given in November/December? If the legal advice had already been given when we were given the waffle, why did Ms Shah not tell us then that information was being held back on the basis of that advice? The facts don't seem to support the much trumpeted policy of transparency.

As for the squandering of dosh, most fans encouraged it and lapped it up. Every time there was a suggestion that PDC might not get what he wanted, there was uproar in favour of He Who Could Do No Wrong. And now many of the PDC disciples are complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed all that money.
Legalities are very complex Den,just ask Lord Rennard! as for our fans in uproar,Wray and Watkin should have been bigger than that,I'm sure Fitton would have,they were not up to the job Den.PDC could only manage with loads of dosh and according to the black cat fans,he wasted a small fortune up there and they say most of his players are Cr@p!!!!!!!!!!!
And if Black/Wray/Watkins had refused Di Canio's demands, we all know he would have walked out in a huff and the club would have been slaughtered for it. In any case Don, this is all a bit melodramatic. The club was acquired for a song and the "buyers" chose to take on all the contracts or, as it turns out, try to wriggle out of them. They knew what they were getting for their investment of £1.
That was your best friend Jedi boy who coughed up a quid of his ill-gotten gains lol, and don't forget Den without that quid we'd now be a Conference side,Lee has put in a fair amount and he's trying to sort the fecking mess PDC,Wray and Watkin left,I don't blame Black cause he did give £10m,but the other three took him for a mug!!!!!!!!
Don, I agree with most of that, except that I doubt Watkins had much say in the spending. He'd have been acting on Wray's instructions. Despite the undeniable c0ck-ups they made, I would welcome Fitton and Wray back with open arms. I think they both cared about the club and I believe both would have learned a lot from their mistakes. Fitton got a roasting for reining in the spending and Wray (eventually) got a roasting for spending too much. Both thought they were doing the right thing for the club and neither deserved the stick they got.

I don't accept that McCrory saved the club. If it hadn't been him "buying" it, it would have been somebody else - and that somebody else might have made an investment in the club rather than making a fast buck out of it. I just can't believe nobody else would have taken on a club that was probably in better nick than most in the Football League. McCrory and his merry men were described as the "preferred bidder", probably because they pulled the wool over the eyes of Patey in the same way they tried to pull it over the eyes of Di Canio, MacDonald and the fans.

Yes, I'm sure Power has put money into the club. We're all grateful for that. He had plenty of time to know what he was getting into though. If he finds that he has to finance the club's contractual obligations, so be it. That's what he's signed up to do.

What brasses me off, Don, is that we've had almost a year of bullsh!t now. I thought McCrory's departure might have signalled a real change but it seems to have made no difference. The fans are still being taken for fools, as shown by Ms Shah's latest non-statement. For the first time in many years, I'm considering not renewing my season ticket. Cue "good riddance, the club doesn't need your sort of support" posts.
Jed didn't save our club Den,but he did save it from admin and that would have put us in dire straights with the FL,it's a bit late for us to give up on the Town after all these years Den, I'll be renewing my season ticket and hope you will,STFC can't lose good fans like yourself and anyway you wouldn't know what to do when Saturday afternoon's came round lol!!
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle. Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.[/p][/quote]That's a bit harsh Den! Wray,Watkin and PDC must take a lot of the blame for this allowing PDC to squander loads of Blacks dosh,until Black finally said no more! and I don't blame the players there out for what they can get,they don't care about the clubs finances and can just move on,seems to me Wray and Watkin were PDC'S solders! whatever the Godfather wanted was given and put on Blacks tab!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Don, the point I'm making is that we were told we would get a full explanation that we could all understand. This was in November and December. These potential legal cases haven't suddenly come to light since then. If the legal advice has been received recently, what is the explanation for the inadequate "commentary" given in November/December? If the legal advice had already been given when we were given the waffle, why did Ms Shah not tell us then that information was being held back on the basis of that advice? The facts don't seem to support the much trumpeted policy of transparency. As for the squandering of dosh, most fans encouraged it and lapped it up. Every time there was a suggestion that PDC might not get what he wanted, there was uproar in favour of He Who Could Do No Wrong. And now many of the PDC disciples are complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed all that money.[/p][/quote]Legalities are very complex Den,just ask Lord Rennard! as for our fans in uproar,Wray and Watkin should have been bigger than that,I'm sure Fitton would have,they were not up to the job Den.PDC could only manage with loads of dosh and according to the black cat fans,he wasted a small fortune up there and they say most of his players are Cr@p!!!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]And if Black/Wray/Watkins had refused Di Canio's demands, we all know he would have walked out in a huff and the club would have been slaughtered for it. In any case Don, this is all a bit melodramatic. The club was acquired for a song and the "buyers" chose to take on all the contracts or, as it turns out, try to wriggle out of them. They knew what they were getting for their investment of £1.[/p][/quote]That was your best friend Jedi boy who coughed up a quid of his ill-gotten gains lol, and don't forget Den without that quid we'd now be a Conference side,Lee has put in a fair amount and he's trying to sort the fecking mess PDC,Wray and Watkin left,I don't blame Black cause he did give £10m,but the other three took him for a mug!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Don, I agree with most of that, except that I doubt Watkins had much say in the spending. He'd have been acting on Wray's instructions. Despite the undeniable c0ck-ups they made, I would welcome Fitton and Wray back with open arms. I think they both cared about the club and I believe both would have learned a lot from their mistakes. Fitton got a roasting for reining in the spending and Wray (eventually) got a roasting for spending too much. Both thought they were doing the right thing for the club and neither deserved the stick they got. I don't accept that McCrory saved the club. If it hadn't been him "buying" it, it would have been somebody else - and that somebody else might have made an investment in the club rather than making a fast buck out of it. I just can't believe nobody else would have taken on a club that was probably in better nick than most in the Football League. McCrory and his merry men were described as the "preferred bidder", probably because they pulled the wool over the eyes of Patey in the same way they tried to pull it over the eyes of Di Canio, MacDonald and the fans. Yes, I'm sure Power has put money into the club. We're all grateful for that. He had plenty of time to know what he was getting into though. If he finds that he has to finance the club's contractual obligations, so be it. That's what he's signed up to do. What brasses me off, Don, is that we've had almost a year of bullsh!t now. I thought McCrory's departure might have signalled a real change but it seems to have made no difference. The fans are still being taken for fools, as shown by Ms Shah's latest non-statement. For the first time in many years, I'm considering not renewing my season ticket. Cue "good riddance, the club doesn't need your sort of support" posts.[/p][/quote]Jed didn't save our club Den,but he did save it from admin and that would have put us in dire straights with the FL,it's a bit late for us to give up on the Town after all these years Den, I'll be renewing my season ticket and hope you will,STFC can't lose good fans like yourself and anyway you wouldn't know what to do when Saturday afternoon's came round lol!! the don69
  • Score: 2

1:02pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Oxon-Red says...

Den,

You maybe right about "somebody else" but isn't it important to ask when that "somebody else" would have come in ?

"Preferred Bidder" diplomatic talk to appease people maybe, make the fans believe there were more than one. I don't know.

Future more important now IMO.

COYMR
Den, You maybe right about "somebody else" but isn't it important to ask when that "somebody else" would have come in ? "Preferred Bidder" diplomatic talk to appease people maybe, make the fans believe there were more than one. I don't know. Future more important now IMO. COYMR Oxon-Red
  • Score: 3

1:13pm Tue 21 Jan 14

whatdogirlsknowaboutfootball1 says...

Err..smokescreen
Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact)
Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact)
The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah
Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway!
Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already
Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already whatdogirlsknowaboutfootball1
  • Score: 4

1:18pm Tue 21 Jan 14

NORTH STAND says...

Davidsyrett wrote:
Just shows how much it cost us for that "one" good season. Was it really worth it? So glad we are now being run sensibly, even if it means mid table.
Absolutely dear chap - at least as I lay on my death bed I will be able to remember fondly that season we balanced the books....

I have two issues with this post (and to be fair it's one of the more sensible ones today)

1. surely no football fan can ever want for mid table obscurity
2. surely no one over the age of six believes we are now being 'well run'
[quote][p][bold]Davidsyrett[/bold] wrote: Just shows how much it cost us for that "one" good season. Was it really worth it? So glad we are now being run sensibly, even if it means mid table.[/p][/quote]Absolutely dear chap - at least as I lay on my death bed I will be able to remember fondly that season we balanced the books.... I have two issues with this post (and to be fair it's one of the more sensible ones today) 1. surely no football fan can ever want for mid table obscurity 2. surely no one over the age of six believes we are now being 'well run' NORTH STAND
  • Score: 0

1:36pm Tue 21 Jan 14

you gots ta be kidding me says...

The early bird season tickets come out in Feb, what if the club dont want renewals put off by a big gaping hole that is about to appear because of the litigation against us.
The early bird season tickets come out in Feb, what if the club dont want renewals put off by a big gaping hole that is about to appear because of the litigation against us. you gots ta be kidding me
  • Score: 1

1:41pm Tue 21 Jan 14

NORTH STAND says...

Here are some opinions regularly espoused on here
it's all PDC's fault
It was Wray wot done it
I blame Black
All Italians are (interchangeably) well dodgy and on the make
Jed would have fixed it
Power is a bit dodgy
Cooper is a puppet
Hall can't defend
Sam writes exactly what he is told or EA will be barred again

Here are some facts - THE DISTINCTION IS IMPORTANT
The club has contractual obligations
The club has not honoured those obligations
Some suppliers are pursuing their contractual rights
In the absence of agreed settlement the courts will decide
Faced with a court order the club must either pay up or wind up / enter administration
If the latter then under FA rules the club will lose it's football licence (third offence)

Here are some more opinions (these are mine and of course they are only opinions)

The club are struggling financially and trying to play hardball (we will not pay and if you sue we will go into administration leaving you with nothing)

In the absence of sufficient cash (or fresh investment) to pay it's creditors the owner may attempt to negotiate a thirty point deduction as a means of keeping the licence

The current business model for the club does not require or even prioritise footballing success or the retention of L1 status

Actually it is primarily Black's fault

Animal Farm should be mandatory reading in state schools (or compulsory viewing in swindon)
Here are some opinions regularly espoused on here it's all PDC's fault It was Wray wot done it I blame Black All Italians are (interchangeably) well dodgy and on the make Jed would have fixed it Power is a bit dodgy Cooper is a puppet Hall can't defend Sam writes exactly what he is told or EA will be barred again Here are some facts - THE DISTINCTION IS IMPORTANT The club has contractual obligations The club has not honoured those obligations Some suppliers are pursuing their contractual rights In the absence of agreed settlement the courts will decide Faced with a court order the club must either pay up or wind up / enter administration If the latter then under FA rules the club will lose it's football licence (third offence) Here are some more opinions (these are mine and of course they are only opinions) The club are struggling financially and trying to play hardball (we will not pay and if you sue we will go into administration leaving you with nothing) In the absence of sufficient cash (or fresh investment) to pay it's creditors the owner may attempt to negotiate a thirty point deduction as a means of keeping the licence The current business model for the club does not require or even prioritise footballing success or the retention of L1 status Actually it is primarily Black's fault Animal Farm should be mandatory reading in state schools (or compulsory viewing in swindon) NORTH STAND
  • Score: -1

1:45pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Chish and Fips says...

whatdogirlsknowabout
football1
wrote:
Err..smokescreen
Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact)
Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact)
The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah
Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway!
Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already
Please don't think for one minute I am doubting your word, I have no accountancy experience at all.
It just seems with these yearly account declarations or what ever they are called can be massaged to suit, or blinding us with science or double meanings.
My point is we could be suffering from the 'mushroom theory' here, the same as with any company or institution declaration . So with all the bluster of forcing the issue may increase the smokescreen or nervousness of releasing any statement, and at the end of day still not know or understand.
Might be a bit 'head in the sand' - or just , what's the point.
[quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already[/p][/quote]Please don't think for one minute I am doubting your word, I have no accountancy experience at all. It just seems with these yearly account declarations or what ever they are called can be massaged to suit, or blinding us with science or double meanings. My point is we could be suffering from the 'mushroom theory' here, the same as with any company or institution declaration . So with all the bluster of forcing the issue may increase the smokescreen or nervousness of releasing any statement, and at the end of day still not know or understand. Might be a bit 'head in the sand' - or just , what's the point. Chish and Fips
  • Score: -1

1:56pm Tue 21 Jan 14

smirg kcab says...

mancrobin wrote:
Can the club sue PdC for squandering funds in a profligate manner?
Squandering funds if I remember right he bought players to get us promoted
Manc what was the outcome?
Bit of a pathetic comment really?
[quote][p][bold]mancrobin[/bold] wrote: Can the club sue PdC for squandering funds in a profligate manner?[/p][/quote]Squandering funds if I remember right he bought players to get us promoted Manc what was the outcome? Bit of a pathetic comment really? smirg kcab
  • Score: -5

2:09pm Tue 21 Jan 14

smirg kcab says...

We need a new chairman who has got millions, don't care how people spends it, don't communicate to anyone and has no interest in our great club.
Anyone know how lee power can contact Andrew black?
We need a new chairman who has got millions, don't care how people spends it, don't communicate to anyone and has no interest in our great club. Anyone know how lee power can contact Andrew black? smirg kcab
  • Score: -2

2:13pm Tue 21 Jan 14

smirg kcab says...

Mrs shah
One question I would like to ask you, can you manage our next away game?
Perhaps you and mark could do a job share.let him manage the home and you the aways.
All the other rubbish I'm not interested in.
Mrs shah One question I would like to ask you, can you manage our next away game? Perhaps you and mark could do a job share.let him manage the home and you the aways. All the other rubbish I'm not interested in. smirg kcab
  • Score: 0

2:22pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Davidsyrett says...

NORTH STAND wrote:
Davidsyrett wrote:
Just shows how much it cost us for that "one" good season. Was it really worth it? So glad we are now being run sensibly, even if it means mid table.
Absolutely dear chap - at least as I lay on my death bed I will be able to remember fondly that season we balanced the books....

I have two issues with this post (and to be fair it's one of the more sensible ones today)

1. surely no football fan can ever want for mid table obscurity
2. surely no one over the age of six believes we are now being 'well run'
Well at least when you lay on your death bed we will still have a club for your offspring to support.

Perhaps your the only one over 6 that does not understand what this club is trying to achieve, Sustainability!
[quote][p][bold]NORTH STAND[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davidsyrett[/bold] wrote: Just shows how much it cost us for that "one" good season. Was it really worth it? So glad we are now being run sensibly, even if it means mid table.[/p][/quote]Absolutely dear chap - at least as I lay on my death bed I will be able to remember fondly that season we balanced the books.... I have two issues with this post (and to be fair it's one of the more sensible ones today) 1. surely no football fan can ever want for mid table obscurity 2. surely no one over the age of six believes we are now being 'well run'[/p][/quote]Well at least when you lay on your death bed we will still have a club for your offspring to support. Perhaps your the only one over 6 that does not understand what this club is trying to achieve, Sustainability! Davidsyrett
  • Score: 2

2:27pm Tue 21 Jan 14

MarksDad says...

Steve. Brentford wrote:
MarksDad wrote:
Oh look a whole page of my favorite doom and gloom merchants!

The thought of reading your made up , over zealous tripe fills me with horror, so I guess I'll have to do what the sane majority do....ignore you all.

Enjoy yourselves in your sad worlds.

COYR
Dont read it then,it really is that simple.


PS i know what you mean about over zealous tripe, i`ve just read your post!
Thats what I said, I wasn't going to read it!! But got bored and did and as I expected a large number of self appointed know it alls who believe they know how to run things better and expect the owners to spend spend spend........idiots all of them!

As for the other posters here..... I won't debate with stuck records who object when someone has a dig at them despite the vitriol some of them spout at managers, players etc.

I made no comment about the article cos I don't know the facts, however can't blame players or for that matter agents for wanting want they agreed , club should have said no if it did not want it. But will wait for the facts.

I for one was one who was taken in by Wray and PDC thinking that the owner in the background had controls in place but like me he was taken for a mug as well. If it ends up costing us the club then the ride was not worth it.

COYR
[quote][p][bold]Steve. Brentford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarksDad[/bold] wrote: Oh look a whole page of my favorite doom and gloom merchants! The thought of reading your made up , over zealous tripe fills me with horror, so I guess I'll have to do what the sane majority do....ignore you all. Enjoy yourselves in your sad worlds. COYR[/p][/quote]Dont read it then,it really is that simple. PS i know what you mean about over zealous tripe, i`ve just read your post![/p][/quote]Thats what I said, I wasn't going to read it!! But got bored and did and as I expected a large number of self appointed know it alls who believe they know how to run things better and expect the owners to spend spend spend........idiots all of them! As for the other posters here..... I won't debate with stuck records who object when someone has a dig at them despite the vitriol some of them spout at managers, players etc. I made no comment about the article cos I don't know the facts, however can't blame players or for that matter agents for wanting want they agreed , club should have said no if it did not want it. But will wait for the facts. I for one was one who was taken in by Wray and PDC thinking that the owner in the background had controls in place but like me he was taken for a mug as well. If it ends up costing us the club then the ride was not worth it. COYR MarksDad
  • Score: -2

2:29pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Davidsyrett says...

Den

"Despite the undeniable c0ck-ups they made, I would welcome Fitton and Wray back with open arms. I think they both cared about the club and I believe both would have learned a lot from their mistakes"

Between them they nearly took us into admin!! Lets hope they have learnt

"I don't accept that McCrory saved the club. If it hadn't been him "buying" it, it would have been somebody else - and that somebody else might have made an investment in the club rather than making a fast buck out of it. I just can't believe nobody else would have taken on a club that was probably in better nick than most in the Football League"

No-one else wanted to buy the club because of the debts, AB wanted out! If it hadn't been for Jed we would probably been relegated one division at least. Open your eyes, they left us in a right state, well meaning or not this club nearly went under.
Den "Despite the undeniable c0ck-ups they made, I would welcome Fitton and Wray back with open arms. I think they both cared about the club and I believe both would have learned a lot from their mistakes" Between them they nearly took us into admin!! Lets hope they have learnt "I don't accept that McCrory saved the club. If it hadn't been him "buying" it, it would have been somebody else - and that somebody else might have made an investment in the club rather than making a fast buck out of it. I just can't believe nobody else would have taken on a club that was probably in better nick than most in the Football League" No-one else wanted to buy the club because of the debts, AB wanted out! If it hadn't been for Jed we would probably been relegated one division at least. Open your eyes, they left us in a right state, well meaning or not this club nearly went under. Davidsyrett
  • Score: -2

2:31pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Chish and Fips says...

Off subject sorry - Incy Wincy just been sacked by Blackpool
Off subject sorry - Incy Wincy just been sacked by Blackpool Chish and Fips
  • Score: -2

2:35pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Steve. Brentford says...

smirg kcab wrote:
Mrs shah
One question I would like to ask you, can you manage our next away game?
Perhaps you and mark could do a job share.let him manage the home and you the aways.
All the other rubbish I'm not interested in.
Hahaha funny Grim i will gve you that one. I just let out a big roar in my office whilst nearly spilling my Rosey Lee..
[quote][p][bold]smirg kcab[/bold] wrote: Mrs shah One question I would like to ask you, can you manage our next away game? Perhaps you and mark could do a job share.let him manage the home and you the aways. All the other rubbish I'm not interested in.[/p][/quote]Hahaha funny Grim i will gve you that one. I just let out a big roar in my office whilst nearly spilling my Rosey Lee.. Steve. Brentford
  • Score: 1

2:49pm Tue 21 Jan 14

smirg kcab says...

Steve. Brentford wrote:
smirg kcab wrote:
Mrs shah
One question I would like to ask you, can you manage our next away game?
Perhaps you and mark could do a job share.let him manage the home and you the aways.
All the other rubbish I'm not interested in.
Hahaha funny Grim i will gve you that one. I just let out a big roar in my office whilst nearly spilling my Rosey Lee..
Steve I'm glad it was a roar rather than a fartt
[quote][p][bold]Steve. Brentford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smirg kcab[/bold] wrote: Mrs shah One question I would like to ask you, can you manage our next away game? Perhaps you and mark could do a job share.let him manage the home and you the aways. All the other rubbish I'm not interested in.[/p][/quote]Hahaha funny Grim i will gve you that one. I just let out a big roar in my office whilst nearly spilling my Rosey Lee..[/p][/quote]Steve I'm glad it was a roar rather than a fartt smirg kcab
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Oi Den! says...

Davidsyrett wrote:
Den

"Despite the undeniable c0ck-ups they made, I would welcome Fitton and Wray back with open arms. I think they both cared about the club and I believe both would have learned a lot from their mistakes"

Between them they nearly took us into admin!! Lets hope they have learnt

"I don't accept that McCrory saved the club. If it hadn't been him "buying" it, it would have been somebody else - and that somebody else might have made an investment in the club rather than making a fast buck out of it. I just can't believe nobody else would have taken on a club that was probably in better nick than most in the Football League"

No-one else wanted to buy the club because of the debts, AB wanted out! If it hadn't been for Jed we would probably been relegated one division at least. Open your eyes, they left us in a right state, well meaning or not this club nearly went under.
They did not leave us in a "right state". They came in and wiped out £10m of debt, they gave us 5 years of generous funding, mostly exciting times and left something that's as rare as hens' teeth - a Football League club with no callable debt. Of course there is the small matter of the £3m - that's the £3m Black and Arbib don't want back unless and until the club is wealthy enough to be able to redevelop the County Ground. Bast@rds.

Black wanted out because he was sick to death of PDC's aggressive threats and demands.

So DS tell us about this "right state" - these debts that frightened off potential buyers. And if this was all such a problem, how come McCrory managed to sell the club on and walk away with burgeoning pockets and a big smile on his face?
[quote][p][bold]Davidsyrett[/bold] wrote: Den "Despite the undeniable c0ck-ups they made, I would welcome Fitton and Wray back with open arms. I think they both cared about the club and I believe both would have learned a lot from their mistakes" Between them they nearly took us into admin!! Lets hope they have learnt "I don't accept that McCrory saved the club. If it hadn't been him "buying" it, it would have been somebody else - and that somebody else might have made an investment in the club rather than making a fast buck out of it. I just can't believe nobody else would have taken on a club that was probably in better nick than most in the Football League" No-one else wanted to buy the club because of the debts, AB wanted out! If it hadn't been for Jed we would probably been relegated one division at least. Open your eyes, they left us in a right state, well meaning or not this club nearly went under.[/p][/quote]They did not leave us in a "right state". They came in and wiped out £10m of debt, they gave us 5 years of generous funding, mostly exciting times and left something that's as rare as hens' teeth - a Football League club with no callable debt. Of course there is the small matter of the £3m - that's the £3m Black and Arbib don't want back unless and until the club is wealthy enough to be able to redevelop the County Ground. Bast@rds. Black wanted out because he was sick to death of PDC's aggressive threats and demands. So DS tell us about this "right state" - these debts that frightened off potential buyers. And if this was all such a problem, how come McCrory managed to sell the club on and walk away with burgeoning pockets and a big smile on his face? Oi Den!
  • Score: 5

3:04pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Steve. Brentford says...

smirg kcab wrote:
Steve. Brentford wrote:
smirg kcab wrote:
Mrs shah
One question I would like to ask you, can you manage our next away game?
Perhaps you and mark could do a job share.let him manage the home and you the aways.
All the other rubbish I'm not interested in.
Hahaha funny Grim i will gve you that one. I just let out a big roar in my office whilst nearly spilling my Rosey Lee..
Steve I'm glad it was a roar rather than a fartt
so too are my staff mate!!!
[quote][p][bold]smirg kcab[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve. Brentford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smirg kcab[/bold] wrote: Mrs shah One question I would like to ask you, can you manage our next away game? Perhaps you and mark could do a job share.let him manage the home and you the aways. All the other rubbish I'm not interested in.[/p][/quote]Hahaha funny Grim i will gve you that one. I just let out a big roar in my office whilst nearly spilling my Rosey Lee..[/p][/quote]Steve I'm glad it was a roar rather than a fartt[/p][/quote]so too are my staff mate!!! Steve. Brentford
  • Score: 0

3:23pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Davidsyrett says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Davidsyrett wrote:
Den

"Despite the undeniable c0ck-ups they made, I would welcome Fitton and Wray back with open arms. I think they both cared about the club and I believe both would have learned a lot from their mistakes"

Between them they nearly took us into admin!! Lets hope they have learnt

"I don't accept that McCrory saved the club. If it hadn't been him "buying" it, it would have been somebody else - and that somebody else might have made an investment in the club rather than making a fast buck out of it. I just can't believe nobody else would have taken on a club that was probably in better nick than most in the Football League"

No-one else wanted to buy the club because of the debts, AB wanted out! If it hadn't been for Jed we would probably been relegated one division at least. Open your eyes, they left us in a right state, well meaning or not this club nearly went under.
They did not leave us in a "right state". They came in and wiped out £10m of debt, they gave us 5 years of generous funding, mostly exciting times and left something that's as rare as hens' teeth - a Football League club with no callable debt. Of course there is the small matter of the £3m - that's the £3m Black and Arbib don't want back unless and until the club is wealthy enough to be able to redevelop the County Ground. Bast@rds.

Black wanted out because he was sick to death of PDC's aggressive threats and demands.

So DS tell us about this "right state" - these debts that frightened off potential buyers. And if this was all such a problem, how come McCrory managed to sell the club on and walk away with burgeoning pockets and a big smile on his face?
Den: High wage bill, remember?? It's OK saying we had no debt the day the club was sold but from day 1 we were running at a loss, approx £1.5M a year, thats £125K a month. There were no other takers for the club except people wanting to put the club in administration. AB at least did the decent thing and chose Jed. Where were all these mega rich investors you keep talking about? None came forward. AB gave 28 days to sell the club, had he have given till the end of the season we may have got another person or two interested, but he got fed up pumping money into the club, remember Ritchie was sold to pay the wages!

McCory sold the club on because he turned around the financial mess that the previous board had left us in, and good luck to him. It also seems apparent that he didn't want out anyway, but had made an agreement with Power in the early days of the take-over. Whilst we are treading water at the moment, I firmly believe that this is the right way to go and once the wage bill is back under control, we will move forward.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davidsyrett[/bold] wrote: Den "Despite the undeniable c0ck-ups they made, I would welcome Fitton and Wray back with open arms. I think they both cared about the club and I believe both would have learned a lot from their mistakes" Between them they nearly took us into admin!! Lets hope they have learnt "I don't accept that McCrory saved the club. If it hadn't been him "buying" it, it would have been somebody else - and that somebody else might have made an investment in the club rather than making a fast buck out of it. I just can't believe nobody else would have taken on a club that was probably in better nick than most in the Football League" No-one else wanted to buy the club because of the debts, AB wanted out! If it hadn't been for Jed we would probably been relegated one division at least. Open your eyes, they left us in a right state, well meaning or not this club nearly went under.[/p][/quote]They did not leave us in a "right state". They came in and wiped out £10m of debt, they gave us 5 years of generous funding, mostly exciting times and left something that's as rare as hens' teeth - a Football League club with no callable debt. Of course there is the small matter of the £3m - that's the £3m Black and Arbib don't want back unless and until the club is wealthy enough to be able to redevelop the County Ground. Bast@rds. Black wanted out because he was sick to death of PDC's aggressive threats and demands. So DS tell us about this "right state" - these debts that frightened off potential buyers. And if this was all such a problem, how come McCrory managed to sell the club on and walk away with burgeoning pockets and a big smile on his face?[/p][/quote]Den: High wage bill, remember?? It's OK saying we had no debt the day the club was sold but from day 1 we were running at a loss, approx £1.5M a year, thats £125K a month. There were no other takers for the club except people wanting to put the club in administration. AB at least did the decent thing and chose Jed. Where were all these mega rich investors you keep talking about? None came forward. AB gave 28 days to sell the club, had he have given till the end of the season we may have got another person or two interested, but he got fed up pumping money into the club, remember Ritchie was sold to pay the wages! McCory sold the club on because he turned around the financial mess that the previous board had left us in, and good luck to him. It also seems apparent that he didn't want out anyway, but had made an agreement with Power in the early days of the take-over. Whilst we are treading water at the moment, I firmly believe that this is the right way to go and once the wage bill is back under control, we will move forward. Davidsyrett
  • Score: 0

3:48pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Oi Den! says...

Did I mention mega rich investors?

DS, I'm not disputing that the wages were too high but that is a short-term problem. It certainly shouldn't have been a problem for someone who had just bought the club for £1, promised to maintain the playing budget at the same level, told the manager he only had to pick up the phone and say who he wanted to buy, told the manager it would be his decision on which players were sold...

I'm not crying over the fact that the club was sold to someone who put nothing into the club. That's life at lower division level. It's the deliberate misleading of everyone that is frustrating. But the fact is that if the club had been sold to someone who really did intend to fund the club, nobody would be saying we were left in a mess by Andrew Black. He would be rightly lauded, along with his colleagues, as the man who saved Swindon Town and handed it over in good order to new owners. IF the only person interested was someone bringing nothing but false promises, that was hardly Black's fault. He'd reached the end of his tether with PDC. We were very lucky it didn't all end earlier and prevent the escape from the basement.
Did I mention mega rich investors? DS, I'm not disputing that the wages were too high but that is a short-term problem. It certainly shouldn't have been a problem for someone who had just bought the club for £1, promised to maintain the playing budget at the same level, told the manager he only had to pick up the phone and say who he wanted to buy, told the manager it would be his decision on which players were sold... I'm not crying over the fact that the club was sold to someone who put nothing into the club. That's life at lower division level. It's the deliberate misleading of everyone that is frustrating. But the fact is that if the club had been sold to someone who really did intend to fund the club, nobody would be saying we were left in a mess by Andrew Black. He would be rightly lauded, along with his colleagues, as the man who saved Swindon Town and handed it over in good order to new owners. IF the only person interested was someone bringing nothing but false promises, that was hardly Black's fault. He'd reached the end of his tether with PDC. We were very lucky it didn't all end earlier and prevent the escape from the basement. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

3:54pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Davidsyrett says...

Den, I still go back to the point that there were no other interested parties who wanted to buy the club, surely if it had been in a good position the buyers would have been flocking? Probably AB 28 days Sale didn't help but had Jed not taken over the club where would we be today?
Den, I still go back to the point that there were no other interested parties who wanted to buy the club, surely if it had been in a good position the buyers would have been flocking? Probably AB 28 days Sale didn't help but had Jed not taken over the club where would we be today? Davidsyrett
  • Score: 2

4:09pm Tue 21 Jan 14

the don69 says...

Turner gone at Shrewsbury chaps,also Ince sacked at Blackpool! the manager merry-go-round continues who's next Moyes?????????
Turner gone at Shrewsbury chaps,also Ince sacked at Blackpool! the manager merry-go-round continues who's next Moyes????????? the don69
  • Score: 1

4:19pm Tue 21 Jan 14

dreamofacleansheet2 says...

Harley you're nothing if not predictable......

Jed must be giggling into his Guiness. Got money and reduced his exposure. Clever deal to be fair. Gotta be a worry these cases as don't expect Power to dig in his pocket which could leave us a deep rocking horse .....

Off for a beer to stop myself worrying about it today....
Harley you're nothing if not predictable...... Jed must be giggling into his Guiness. Got money and reduced his exposure. Clever deal to be fair. Gotta be a worry these cases as don't expect Power to dig in his pocket which could leave us a deep rocking horse ..... Off for a beer to stop myself worrying about it today.... dreamofacleansheet2
  • Score: 0

4:25pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Cleuso says...

whatdogirlsknowabout
football1
wrote:
Err..smokescreen
Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact)
Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact)
The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah
Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway!
Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already
And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.
[quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already[/p][/quote]And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact. Cleuso
  • Score: 0

4:29pm Tue 21 Jan 14

umpcah says...

the don69 wrote:
Turner gone at Shrewsbury chaps,also Ince sacked at Blackpool! the manager merry-go-round continues who's next Moyes?????????
John Ward or Sam Allardyce ?
[quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote: Turner gone at Shrewsbury chaps,also Ince sacked at Blackpool! the manager merry-go-round continues who's next Moyes?????????[/p][/quote]John Ward or Sam Allardyce ? umpcah
  • Score: 0

4:32pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Cleuso says...

Oi Den! wrote:
the don69 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
the don69 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
the don69 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle.

Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.
That's a bit harsh Den! Wray,Watkin and PDC must take a lot of the blame for this allowing PDC to squander loads of Blacks dosh,until Black finally said no more! and I don't blame the players there out for what they can get,they don't care about the clubs finances and can just move on,seems to me Wray and Watkin were PDC'S solders! whatever the Godfather wanted was given and put on Blacks tab!!!!!!!!!
Don, the point I'm making is that we were told we would get a full explanation that we could all understand. This was in November and December. These potential legal cases haven't suddenly come to light since then. If the legal advice has been received recently, what is the explanation for the inadequate "commentary" given in November/December? If the legal advice had already been given when we were given the waffle, why did Ms Shah not tell us then that information was being held back on the basis of that advice? The facts don't seem to support the much trumpeted policy of transparency.

As for the squandering of dosh, most fans encouraged it and lapped it up. Every time there was a suggestion that PDC might not get what he wanted, there was uproar in favour of He Who Could Do No Wrong. And now many of the PDC disciples are complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed all that money.
Legalities are very complex Den,just ask Lord Rennard! as for our fans in uproar,Wray and Watkin should have been bigger than that,I'm sure Fitton would have,they were not up to the job Den.PDC could only manage with loads of dosh and according to the black cat fans,he wasted a small fortune up there and they say most of his players are Cr@p!!!!!!!!!!!
And if Black/Wray/Watkins had refused Di Canio's demands, we all know he would have walked out in a huff and the club would have been slaughtered for it. In any case Don, this is all a bit melodramatic. The club was acquired for a song and the "buyers" chose to take on all the contracts or, as it turns out, try to wriggle out of them. They knew what they were getting for their investment of £1.
That was your best friend Jedi boy who coughed up a quid of his ill-gotten gains lol, and don't forget Den without that quid we'd now be a Conference side,Lee has put in a fair amount and he's trying to sort the fecking mess PDC,Wray and Watkin left,I don't blame Black cause he did give £10m,but the other three took him for a mug!!!!!!!!
Don, I agree with most of that, except that I doubt Watkins had much say in the spending. He'd have been acting on Wray's instructions. Despite the undeniable c0ck-ups they made, I would welcome Fitton and Wray back with open arms. I think they both cared about the club and I believe both would have learned a lot from their mistakes. Fitton got a roasting for reining in the spending and Wray (eventually) got a roasting for spending too much. Both thought they were doing the right thing for the club and neither deserved the stick they got.

I don't accept that McCrory saved the club. If it hadn't been him "buying" it, it would have been somebody else - and that somebody else might have made an investment in the club rather than making a fast buck out of it. I just can't believe nobody else would have taken on a club that was probably in better nick than most in the Football League. McCrory and his merry men were described as the "preferred bidder", probably because they pulled the wool over the eyes of Patey in the same way they tried to pull it over the eyes of Di Canio, MacDonald and the fans.

Yes, I'm sure Power has put money into the club. We're all grateful for that. He had plenty of time to know what he was getting into though. If he finds that he has to finance the club's contractual obligations, so be it. That's what he's signed up to do.

What brasses me off, Don, is that we've had almost a year of bullsh!t now. I thought McCrory's departure might have signalled a real change but it seems to have made no difference. The fans are still being taken for fools, as shown by Ms Shah's latest non-statement. For the first time in many years, I'm considering not renewing my season ticket. Cue "good riddance, the club doesn't need your sort of support" posts.
You may make those assumptions with hindsight and assume everything turne dout alright, but we may have been in administration before another buyer came along...don't forget that was only "hours" away when McCory etc stepped in. That investment then from "another party" would have been with us playing in the Conference (if they accepted us)
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: The worst part about all this is that Shah expects us to believe she had already done a "commentary" by giving us a few words of waffle. Jed would proud of the way Sangita has inherited his mantle. He must have taught her well.[/p][/quote]That's a bit harsh Den! Wray,Watkin and PDC must take a lot of the blame for this allowing PDC to squander loads of Blacks dosh,until Black finally said no more! and I don't blame the players there out for what they can get,they don't care about the clubs finances and can just move on,seems to me Wray and Watkin were PDC'S solders! whatever the Godfather wanted was given and put on Blacks tab!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Don, the point I'm making is that we were told we would get a full explanation that we could all understand. This was in November and December. These potential legal cases haven't suddenly come to light since then. If the legal advice has been received recently, what is the explanation for the inadequate "commentary" given in November/December? If the legal advice had already been given when we were given the waffle, why did Ms Shah not tell us then that information was being held back on the basis of that advice? The facts don't seem to support the much trumpeted policy of transparency. As for the squandering of dosh, most fans encouraged it and lapped it up. Every time there was a suggestion that PDC might not get what he wanted, there was uproar in favour of He Who Could Do No Wrong. And now many of the PDC disciples are complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed all that money.[/p][/quote]Legalities are very complex Den,just ask Lord Rennard! as for our fans in uproar,Wray and Watkin should have been bigger than that,I'm sure Fitton would have,they were not up to the job Den.PDC could only manage with loads of dosh and according to the black cat fans,he wasted a small fortune up there and they say most of his players are Cr@p!!!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]And if Black/Wray/Watkins had refused Di Canio's demands, we all know he would have walked out in a huff and the club would have been slaughtered for it. In any case Don, this is all a bit melodramatic. The club was acquired for a song and the "buyers" chose to take on all the contracts or, as it turns out, try to wriggle out of them. They knew what they were getting for their investment of £1.[/p][/quote]That was your best friend Jedi boy who coughed up a quid of his ill-gotten gains lol, and don't forget Den without that quid we'd now be a Conference side,Lee has put in a fair amount and he's trying to sort the fecking mess PDC,Wray and Watkin left,I don't blame Black cause he did give £10m,but the other three took him for a mug!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Don, I agree with most of that, except that I doubt Watkins had much say in the spending. He'd have been acting on Wray's instructions. Despite the undeniable c0ck-ups they made, I would welcome Fitton and Wray back with open arms. I think they both cared about the club and I believe both would have learned a lot from their mistakes. Fitton got a roasting for reining in the spending and Wray (eventually) got a roasting for spending too much. Both thought they were doing the right thing for the club and neither deserved the stick they got. I don't accept that McCrory saved the club. If it hadn't been him "buying" it, it would have been somebody else - and that somebody else might have made an investment in the club rather than making a fast buck out of it. I just can't believe nobody else would have taken on a club that was probably in better nick than most in the Football League. McCrory and his merry men were described as the "preferred bidder", probably because they pulled the wool over the eyes of Patey in the same way they tried to pull it over the eyes of Di Canio, MacDonald and the fans. Yes, I'm sure Power has put money into the club. We're all grateful for that. He had plenty of time to know what he was getting into though. If he finds that he has to finance the club's contractual obligations, so be it. That's what he's signed up to do. What brasses me off, Don, is that we've had almost a year of bullsh!t now. I thought McCrory's departure might have signalled a real change but it seems to have made no difference. The fans are still being taken for fools, as shown by Ms Shah's latest non-statement. For the first time in many years, I'm considering not renewing my season ticket. Cue "good riddance, the club doesn't need your sort of support" posts.[/p][/quote]You may make those assumptions with hindsight and assume everything turne dout alright, but we may have been in administration before another buyer came along...don't forget that was only "hours" away when McCory etc stepped in. That investment then from "another party" would have been with us playing in the Conference (if they accepted us) Cleuso
  • Score: 0

4:32pm Tue 21 Jan 14

whatdogirlsknowaboutfootball1 says...

Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already
And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.
Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed
[quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already[/p][/quote]And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.[/p][/quote]Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed whatdogirlsknowaboutfootball1
  • Score: 1

4:39pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Cleuso says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Davidsyrett wrote:
Den

"Despite the undeniable c0ck-ups they made, I would welcome Fitton and Wray back with open arms. I think they both cared about the club and I believe both would have learned a lot from their mistakes"

Between them they nearly took us into admin!! Lets hope they have learnt

"I don't accept that McCrory saved the club. If it hadn't been him "buying" it, it would have been somebody else - and that somebody else might have made an investment in the club rather than making a fast buck out of it. I just can't believe nobody else would have taken on a club that was probably in better nick than most in the Football League"

No-one else wanted to buy the club because of the debts, AB wanted out! If it hadn't been for Jed we would probably been relegated one division at least. Open your eyes, they left us in a right state, well meaning or not this club nearly went under.
They did not leave us in a "right state". They came in and wiped out £10m of debt, they gave us 5 years of generous funding, mostly exciting times and left something that's as rare as hens' teeth - a Football League club with no callable debt. Of course there is the small matter of the £3m - that's the £3m Black and Arbib don't want back unless and until the club is wealthy enough to be able to redevelop the County Ground. Bast@rds.

Black wanted out because he was sick to death of PDC's aggressive threats and demands.

So DS tell us about this "right state" - these debts that frightened off potential buyers. And if this was all such a problem, how come McCrory managed to sell the club on and walk away with burgeoning pockets and a big smile on his face?
McCrory.... did he "manage" to sell the club or was he "forced" to under a previous contractural obligation
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davidsyrett[/bold] wrote: Den "Despite the undeniable c0ck-ups they made, I would welcome Fitton and Wray back with open arms. I think they both cared about the club and I believe both would have learned a lot from their mistakes" Between them they nearly took us into admin!! Lets hope they have learnt "I don't accept that McCrory saved the club. If it hadn't been him "buying" it, it would have been somebody else - and that somebody else might have made an investment in the club rather than making a fast buck out of it. I just can't believe nobody else would have taken on a club that was probably in better nick than most in the Football League" No-one else wanted to buy the club because of the debts, AB wanted out! If it hadn't been for Jed we would probably been relegated one division at least. Open your eyes, they left us in a right state, well meaning or not this club nearly went under.[/p][/quote]They did not leave us in a "right state". They came in and wiped out £10m of debt, they gave us 5 years of generous funding, mostly exciting times and left something that's as rare as hens' teeth - a Football League club with no callable debt. Of course there is the small matter of the £3m - that's the £3m Black and Arbib don't want back unless and until the club is wealthy enough to be able to redevelop the County Ground. Bast@rds. Black wanted out because he was sick to death of PDC's aggressive threats and demands. So DS tell us about this "right state" - these debts that frightened off potential buyers. And if this was all such a problem, how come McCrory managed to sell the club on and walk away with burgeoning pockets and a big smile on his face?[/p][/quote]McCrory.... did he "manage" to sell the club or was he "forced" to under a previous contractural obligation Cleuso
  • Score: 0

4:49pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Cleuso says...

whatdogirlsknowabout
football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already
And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.
Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed
So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise....

Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work.
[quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already[/p][/quote]And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.[/p][/quote]Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed[/p][/quote]So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise.... Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work. Cleuso
  • Score: -1

5:00pm Tue 21 Jan 14

whatdogirlsknowaboutfootball1 says...

Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already
And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.
Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed
So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise.... Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work.
The point being the limited accounts are closed and filed but the information on the full accounts "will not be released" ergo the Club have been advised NOT to release the full accounts and NOT to disclose all information

Nowhere in my post have I suggested the Club is under an obligation to release full details. Purely the suggestion that they come with clean hands if there is nothing to hide,while else wouldnt they

Again, read the facts, the article itself clearly states that the Club has made a decision to "withhold" certain information
[quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already[/p][/quote]And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.[/p][/quote]Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed[/p][/quote]So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise.... Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work.[/p][/quote]The point being the limited accounts are closed and filed but the information on the full accounts "will not be released" ergo the Club have been advised NOT to release the full accounts and NOT to disclose all information Nowhere in my post have I suggested the Club is under an obligation to release full details. Purely the suggestion that they come with clean hands if there is nothing to hide,while else wouldnt they Again, read the facts, the article itself clearly states that the Club has made a decision to "withhold" certain information whatdogirlsknowaboutfootball1
  • Score: 0

5:18pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Chish and Fips says...

whatdogirlsknowabout
football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already
And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.
Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed
So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise.... Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work.
The point being the limited accounts are closed and filed but the information on the full accounts "will not be released" ergo the Club have been advised NOT to release the full accounts and NOT to disclose all information

Nowhere in my post have I suggested the Club is under an obligation to release full details. Purely the suggestion that they come with clean hands if there is nothing to hide,while else wouldnt they

Again, read the facts, the article itself clearly states that the Club has made a decision to "withhold" certain information
All a bit to technical for me - seems who ever can twist words wins this. ;O)
[quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already[/p][/quote]And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.[/p][/quote]Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed[/p][/quote]So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise.... Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work.[/p][/quote]The point being the limited accounts are closed and filed but the information on the full accounts "will not be released" ergo the Club have been advised NOT to release the full accounts and NOT to disclose all information Nowhere in my post have I suggested the Club is under an obligation to release full details. Purely the suggestion that they come with clean hands if there is nothing to hide,while else wouldnt they Again, read the facts, the article itself clearly states that the Club has made a decision to "withhold" certain information[/p][/quote]All a bit to technical for me - seems who ever can twist words wins this. ;O) Chish and Fips
  • Score: 1

5:18pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Oi Den! says...

Cleuso, judging by the conflicting statements regarding ownership, I think he probably was forced to sell the club when Power exercised his option to buy it. Because of Power's financial stake he was probably already the effective owner anyway. My belief is that the club is in better hands under Power than it was under McCrory but that won't stop me feeling angry at Ms Shah treating the fans as mugs.

This was the brave new world 4 months ago:

"We are having an audit being conducted of the finances, which fans can look at and they’ll be able to see real progress in terms of the sustainable model that we discussed....

... If this was a small business you would do that as first call. I think you have an obligation to your stakeholders and here the fans are shareholders. They need to have some confidence in things off the field which will enable them enjoy the entertainment on the field."

McCrory was singing the same tune two months later, just before the words of waffle were published with none of the promise fulfilled. So when Ms Shah spoke to the Adver in early December and said nothing, had she already received the advice that it would be unwise to keep the promise to the fans? If so, why didn't she tell us then?
Cleuso, judging by the conflicting statements regarding ownership, I think he probably was forced to sell the club when Power exercised his option to buy it. Because of Power's financial stake he was probably already the effective owner anyway. My belief is that the club is in better hands under Power than it was under McCrory but that won't stop me feeling angry at Ms Shah treating the fans as mugs. This was the brave new world 4 months ago: "We are having an audit being conducted of the finances, which fans can look at and they’ll be able to see real progress in terms of the sustainable model that we discussed.... ... If this was a small business you would do that as first call. I think you have an obligation to your stakeholders and here the fans are shareholders. They need to have some confidence in things off the field which will enable them enjoy the entertainment on the field." McCrory was singing the same tune two months later, just before the words of waffle were published with none of the promise fulfilled. So when Ms Shah spoke to the Adver in early December and said nothing, had she already received the advice that it would be unwise to keep the promise to the fans? If so, why didn't she tell us then? Oi Den!
  • Score: 1

5:20pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Chish and Fips says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Cleuso, judging by the conflicting statements regarding ownership, I think he probably was forced to sell the club when Power exercised his option to buy it. Because of Power's financial stake he was probably already the effective owner anyway. My belief is that the club is in better hands under Power than it was under McCrory but that won't stop me feeling angry at Ms Shah treating the fans as mugs.

This was the brave new world 4 months ago:

"We are having an audit being conducted of the finances, which fans can look at and they’ll be able to see real progress in terms of the sustainable model that we discussed....

... If this was a small business you would do that as first call. I think you have an obligation to your stakeholders and here the fans are shareholders. They need to have some confidence in things off the field which will enable them enjoy the entertainment on the field."

McCrory was singing the same tune two months later, just before the words of waffle were published with none of the promise fulfilled. So when Ms Shah spoke to the Adver in early December and said nothing, had she already received the advice that it would be unwise to keep the promise to the fans? If so, why didn't she tell us then?
... and round and round we go again .!!!!!!!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Cleuso, judging by the conflicting statements regarding ownership, I think he probably was forced to sell the club when Power exercised his option to buy it. Because of Power's financial stake he was probably already the effective owner anyway. My belief is that the club is in better hands under Power than it was under McCrory but that won't stop me feeling angry at Ms Shah treating the fans as mugs. This was the brave new world 4 months ago: "We are having an audit being conducted of the finances, which fans can look at and they’ll be able to see real progress in terms of the sustainable model that we discussed.... ... If this was a small business you would do that as first call. I think you have an obligation to your stakeholders and here the fans are shareholders. They need to have some confidence in things off the field which will enable them enjoy the entertainment on the field." McCrory was singing the same tune two months later, just before the words of waffle were published with none of the promise fulfilled. So when Ms Shah spoke to the Adver in early December and said nothing, had she already received the advice that it would be unwise to keep the promise to the fans? If so, why didn't she tell us then?[/p][/quote]... and round and round we go again .!!!!!!!!!!!! Chish and Fips
  • Score: 0

5:20pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Bart73 says...

What one thing prove that been paid £400,000 Luongo from spurs !! Where money from ??
What one thing prove that been paid £400,000 Luongo from spurs !! Where money from ?? Bart73
  • Score: 0

5:22pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Chish and Fips says...

Bart73 wrote:
What one thing prove that been paid £400,000 Luongo from spurs !! Where money from ??
and in English ??
[quote][p][bold]Bart73[/bold] wrote: What one thing prove that been paid £400,000 Luongo from spurs !! Where money from ??[/p][/quote]and in English ?? Chish and Fips
  • Score: 3

5:27pm Tue 21 Jan 14

dazzastfc says...

Steve. Brentford wrote:
MarksDad wrote:
Oh look a whole page of my favorite doom and gloom merchants!

The thought of reading your made up , over zealous tripe fills me with horror, so I guess I'll have to do what the sane majority do....ignore you all.

Enjoy yourselves in your sad worlds.

COYR
Dont read it then,it really is that simple.


PS i know what you mean about over zealous tripe, i`ve just read your post!
GO ON MY SON....YOU TELL HIM over zealous tripe,WHAT EVER NEXT
[quote][p][bold]Steve. Brentford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarksDad[/bold] wrote: Oh look a whole page of my favorite doom and gloom merchants! The thought of reading your made up , over zealous tripe fills me with horror, so I guess I'll have to do what the sane majority do....ignore you all. Enjoy yourselves in your sad worlds. COYR[/p][/quote]Dont read it then,it really is that simple. PS i know what you mean about over zealous tripe, i`ve just read your post![/p][/quote]GO ON MY SON....YOU TELL HIM over zealous tripe,WHAT EVER NEXT dazzastfc
  • Score: 2

5:39pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Oi Den! says...

Chish and Fips wrote:
Bart73 wrote:
What one thing prove that been paid £400,000 Luongo from spurs !! Where money from ??
and in English ??
Give the bloke a break. English probably isn't his first language but he's having a go.

As regards your "round again" comment, it's up to the club to break that cycle.
[quote][p][bold]Chish and Fips[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bart73[/bold] wrote: What one thing prove that been paid £400,000 Luongo from spurs !! Where money from ??[/p][/quote]and in English ??[/p][/quote]Give the bloke a break. English probably isn't his first language but he's having a go. As regards your "round again" comment, it's up to the club to break that cycle. Oi Den!
  • Score: 2

6:02pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Cleuso says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Cleuso, judging by the conflicting statements regarding ownership, I think he probably was forced to sell the club when Power exercised his option to buy it. Because of Power's financial stake he was probably already the effective owner anyway. My belief is that the club is in better hands under Power than it was under McCrory but that won't stop me feeling angry at Ms Shah treating the fans as mugs.

This was the brave new world 4 months ago:

"We are having an audit being conducted of the finances, which fans can look at and they’ll be able to see real progress in terms of the sustainable model that we discussed....

... If this was a small business you would do that as first call. I think you have an obligation to your stakeholders and here the fans are shareholders. They need to have some confidence in things off the field which will enable them enjoy the entertainment on the field."

McCrory was singing the same tune two months later, just before the words of waffle were published with none of the promise fulfilled. So when Ms Shah spoke to the Adver in early December and said nothing, had she already received the advice that it would be unwise to keep the promise to the fans? If so, why didn't she tell us then?
Maybe she had received that advice and felt better not to say anything at all at that time - I don't know, but like many other posters I could make things up if I wanted to believe something for one reason or another ...

Patience is a virtue we will just have to wait until they are ready and willing to release it all, as I said in another post as a private company they are only required and obliged to reveal a minimum amount of information to fulfil company house / company law requirements.

If they think providing further commentary at this time may after taking counsels advice (lawyer) that it it best not to release information, I would prefer them to do that than effectively conceeding that priviledged information to those that are threatening to take the club to court over their claims would seem to be a bit of an own goal in legal terms.

i would much rather they took that stance and waited until any court / negotiations are concluded as that gives more protection to the club and the fans that support it. I really don't see the issue with that approach which seems eminently sensible and I don't see it as a broken promise, just one that has been delayed....an apology / explanation for the delay and an undertaking to fulfil it once everything is concluded is perfectly acceptable.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Cleuso, judging by the conflicting statements regarding ownership, I think he probably was forced to sell the club when Power exercised his option to buy it. Because of Power's financial stake he was probably already the effective owner anyway. My belief is that the club is in better hands under Power than it was under McCrory but that won't stop me feeling angry at Ms Shah treating the fans as mugs. This was the brave new world 4 months ago: "We are having an audit being conducted of the finances, which fans can look at and they’ll be able to see real progress in terms of the sustainable model that we discussed.... ... If this was a small business you would do that as first call. I think you have an obligation to your stakeholders and here the fans are shareholders. They need to have some confidence in things off the field which will enable them enjoy the entertainment on the field." McCrory was singing the same tune two months later, just before the words of waffle were published with none of the promise fulfilled. So when Ms Shah spoke to the Adver in early December and said nothing, had she already received the advice that it would be unwise to keep the promise to the fans? If so, why didn't she tell us then?[/p][/quote]Maybe she had received that advice and felt better not to say anything at all at that time - I don't know, but like many other posters I could make things up if I wanted to believe something for one reason or another ... Patience is a virtue we will just have to wait until they are ready and willing to release it all, as I said in another post as a private company they are only required and obliged to reveal a minimum amount of information to fulfil company house / company law requirements. If they think providing further commentary at this time may after taking counsels advice (lawyer) that it it best not to release information, I would prefer them to do that than effectively conceeding that priviledged information to those that are threatening to take the club to court over their claims would seem to be a bit of an own goal in legal terms. i would much rather they took that stance and waited until any court / negotiations are concluded as that gives more protection to the club and the fans that support it. I really don't see the issue with that approach which seems eminently sensible and I don't see it as a broken promise, just one that has been delayed....an apology / explanation for the delay and an undertaking to fulfil it once everything is concluded is perfectly acceptable. Cleuso
  • Score: 0

6:05pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Cleuso says...

whatdogirlsknowabout
football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already
And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.
Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed
So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise.... Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work.
The point being the limited accounts are closed and filed but the information on the full accounts "will not be released" ergo the Club have been advised NOT to release the full accounts and NOT to disclose all information

Nowhere in my post have I suggested the Club is under an obligation to release full details. Purely the suggestion that they come with clean hands if there is nothing to hide,while else wouldnt they

Again, read the facts, the article itself clearly states that the Club has made a decision to "withhold" certain information
Read my fuller reply to Oi Den.... the reason is perfectly valid and quite sensible unless you want the other parties in dispute to have a negotiation advantage should they reach court.
[quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already[/p][/quote]And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.[/p][/quote]Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed[/p][/quote]So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise.... Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work.[/p][/quote]The point being the limited accounts are closed and filed but the information on the full accounts "will not be released" ergo the Club have been advised NOT to release the full accounts and NOT to disclose all information Nowhere in my post have I suggested the Club is under an obligation to release full details. Purely the suggestion that they come with clean hands if there is nothing to hide,while else wouldnt they Again, read the facts, the article itself clearly states that the Club has made a decision to "withhold" certain information[/p][/quote]Read my fuller reply to Oi Den.... the reason is perfectly valid and quite sensible unless you want the other parties in dispute to have a negotiation advantage should they reach court. Cleuso
  • Score: -1

6:16pm Tue 21 Jan 14

whatdogirlsknowaboutfootball1 says...

Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout

football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already
And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.
Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed
So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise.... Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work.
The point being the limited accounts are closed and filed but the information on the full accounts "will not be released" ergo the Club have been advised NOT to release the full accounts and NOT to disclose all information

Nowhere in my post have I suggested the Club is under an obligation to release full details. Purely the suggestion that they come with clean hands if there is nothing to hide,while else wouldnt they

Again, read the facts, the article itself clearly states that the Club has made a decision to "withhold" certain information
Read my fuller reply to Oi Den.... the reason is perfectly valid and quite sensible unless you want the other parties in dispute to have a negotiation advantage should they reach court.
Valid or no....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn
[quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already[/p][/quote]And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.[/p][/quote]Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed[/p][/quote]So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise.... Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work.[/p][/quote]The point being the limited accounts are closed and filed but the information on the full accounts "will not be released" ergo the Club have been advised NOT to release the full accounts and NOT to disclose all information Nowhere in my post have I suggested the Club is under an obligation to release full details. Purely the suggestion that they come with clean hands if there is nothing to hide,while else wouldnt they Again, read the facts, the article itself clearly states that the Club has made a decision to "withhold" certain information[/p][/quote]Read my fuller reply to Oi Den.... the reason is perfectly valid and quite sensible unless you want the other parties in dispute to have a negotiation advantage should they reach court.[/p][/quote]Valid or no....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn whatdogirlsknowaboutfootball1
  • Score: 0

6:33pm Tue 21 Jan 14

The Jockster says...

WhatGirl/Oi Den 3 - Cleuso 0 nil pwa!
WhatGirl/Oi Den 3 - Cleuso 0 nil pwa! The Jockster
  • Score: 0

6:37pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Chish and Fips says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Chish and Fips wrote:
Bart73 wrote:
What one thing prove that been paid £400,000 Luongo from spurs !! Where money from ??
and in English ??
Give the bloke a break. English probably isn't his first language but he's having a go.

As regards your "round again" comment, it's up to the club to break that cycle.
Agreed re: up to the club to break that cycle.- but your constant repetitive words were good about 2 weeks ago but now do seem a bit worn out.
I'm very skeptical of any of these financial announcements from not only STFC but governments, companies and such like - they only tell or highlight the good bits and smother the rest in waffle, and smoke and mirrors.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chish and Fips[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bart73[/bold] wrote: What one thing prove that been paid £400,000 Luongo from spurs !! Where money from ??[/p][/quote]and in English ??[/p][/quote]Give the bloke a break. English probably isn't his first language but he's having a go. As regards your "round again" comment, it's up to the club to break that cycle.[/p][/quote]Agreed re: up to the club to break that cycle.- but your constant repetitive words were good about 2 weeks ago but now do seem a bit worn out. I'm very skeptical of any of these financial announcements from not only STFC but governments, companies and such like - they only tell or highlight the good bits and smother the rest in waffle, and smoke and mirrors. Chish and Fips
  • Score: -1

6:45pm Tue 21 Jan 14

stfc2012 says...

whatdogirlsknowabout
football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already
And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.
Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed
So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise.... Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work.
The point being the limited accounts are closed and filed but the information on the full accounts "will not be released" ergo the Club have been advised NOT to release the full accounts and NOT to disclose all information

Nowhere in my post have I suggested the Club is under an obligation to release full details. Purely the suggestion that they come with clean hands if there is nothing to hide,while else wouldnt they

Again, read the facts, the article itself clearly states that the Club has made a decision to "withhold" certain information
Like it or not this poster seems to have it spot on.
[quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already[/p][/quote]And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.[/p][/quote]Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed[/p][/quote]So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise.... Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work.[/p][/quote]The point being the limited accounts are closed and filed but the information on the full accounts "will not be released" ergo the Club have been advised NOT to release the full accounts and NOT to disclose all information Nowhere in my post have I suggested the Club is under an obligation to release full details. Purely the suggestion that they come with clean hands if there is nothing to hide,while else wouldnt they Again, read the facts, the article itself clearly states that the Club has made a decision to "withhold" certain information[/p][/quote]Like it or not this poster seems to have it spot on. stfc2012
  • Score: 0

6:47pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Chish and Fips says...

The Jockster wrote:
WhatGirl/Oi Den 3 - Cleuso 0 nil pwa!
I'm wondering if WG is Fredi's PA - he must be on leave, as with all his insider knowledge I'm sure he would be on here enlightening us by now... :o)
1-2 more like - no biased support from me.... pwa what ever that stands for...
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: WhatGirl/Oi Den 3 - Cleuso 0 nil pwa![/p][/quote]I'm wondering if WG is Fredi's PA - he must be on leave, as with all his insider knowledge I'm sure he would be on here enlightening us by now... :o) 1-2 more like - no biased support from me.... pwa what ever that stands for... Chish and Fips
  • Score: -1

8:01pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Buttscratcher, says...

Seems like cleuso doesn't like being told what's what by a girl to me
Seems like cleuso doesn't like being told what's what by a girl to me Buttscratcher,
  • Score: 0

8:02pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Oi Den! says...

Cleuso and Chish, I'd just add that McCrory always seemed to specialise in telling the fans one thing, doing another and then relying on everyone to dismiss the whole thing with the passage of time. I'm sure it was music to his ears when some fans urged others to stop questioning his broken promises. I'm clearly not the only one who thinks Sangita Shah has picked up his baton and run with it in style.

Many of us are well aware of what information companies are legally required to make public. This isn't about that; it's about what these people SAID they would do, with all the accompanying sham deference to the fans (see above).
Cleuso and Chish, I'd just add that McCrory always seemed to specialise in telling the fans one thing, doing another and then relying on everyone to dismiss the whole thing with the passage of time. I'm sure it was music to his ears when some fans urged others to stop questioning his broken promises. I'm clearly not the only one who thinks Sangita Shah has picked up his baton and run with it in style. Many of us are well aware of what information companies are legally required to make public. This isn't about that; it's about what these people SAID they would do, with all the accompanying sham deference to the fans (see above). Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

8:05pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Cleuso says...

whatdogirlsknowabout
football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout


football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already
And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.
Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed
So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise.... Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work.
The point being the limited accounts are closed and filed but the information on the full accounts "will not be released" ergo the Club have been advised NOT to release the full accounts and NOT to disclose all information

Nowhere in my post have I suggested the Club is under an obligation to release full details. Purely the suggestion that they come with clean hands if there is nothing to hide,while else wouldnt they

Again, read the facts, the article itself clearly states that the Club has made a decision to "withhold" certain information
Read my fuller reply to Oi Den.... the reason is perfectly valid and quite sensible unless you want the other parties in dispute to have a negotiation advantage should they reach court.
Valid or no....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn
...you said....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn....

I ask .......Why ?

Read the article fully not just the bits you want to use to try to justify or validate your theory.

There is no reason to reach your conclusions unless you have further factual evidence, which you don't have

You introduce the word -withold - in your note at 6.16pm yet you ignore the context and information within the article.

The context for the delays was quite clearly set out and explained in the article and easily understood to any one with an open mind....

Incidentally, the word, withold, never appeared at all in the article, it was first used by you. What it said was and I quote............... it was in the best interests of the club for some of the finer points of the audit to remain private for the time being.

Again you ignore the phrase "for the time being" ... doesn't preclude them being released as and when the time is appropriate. Given the previous commiment for transparency and once the legals are out of the way I antiicipate it will happen...but realistically it won't be tomorrow and I doubt we can expect that in the next few months.

What I don't understand is how you come up with your payments conspiracy theory, yet ignore the facts in the article - the advice not to disclose at this time came from the STFC legal team I suspect .....

Jockster..... imaginary theory 0 reliance on factuals 1 - you may like to rethink your observation,

.
[quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already[/p][/quote]And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.[/p][/quote]Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed[/p][/quote]So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise.... Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work.[/p][/quote]The point being the limited accounts are closed and filed but the information on the full accounts "will not be released" ergo the Club have been advised NOT to release the full accounts and NOT to disclose all information Nowhere in my post have I suggested the Club is under an obligation to release full details. Purely the suggestion that they come with clean hands if there is nothing to hide,while else wouldnt they Again, read the facts, the article itself clearly states that the Club has made a decision to "withhold" certain information[/p][/quote]Read my fuller reply to Oi Den.... the reason is perfectly valid and quite sensible unless you want the other parties in dispute to have a negotiation advantage should they reach court.[/p][/quote]Valid or no....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn[/p][/quote]...you said....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn.... I ask .......Why ? Read the article fully not just the bits you want to use to try to justify or validate your theory. There is no reason to reach your conclusions unless you have further factual evidence, which you don't have You introduce the word -withold - in your note at 6.16pm yet you ignore the context and information within the article. The context for the delays was quite clearly set out and explained in the article and easily understood to any one with an open mind.... Incidentally, the word, withold, never appeared at all in the article, it was first used by you. What it said was and I quote............... it was in the best interests of the club for some of the finer points of the audit to remain private for the time being. Again you ignore the phrase "for the time being" ... doesn't preclude them being released as and when the time is appropriate. Given the previous commiment for transparency and once the legals are out of the way I antiicipate it will happen...but realistically it won't be tomorrow and I doubt we can expect that in the next few months. What I don't understand is how you come up with your payments conspiracy theory, yet ignore the facts in the article - the advice not to disclose at this time came from the STFC legal team I suspect ..... Jockster..... imaginary theory 0 reliance on factuals 1 - you may like to rethink your observation, . Cleuso
  • Score: 0

8:30pm Tue 21 Jan 14

The Jockster says...

Buttscratcher, wrote:
Seems like cleuso doesn't like being told what's what by a girl to me
Yep!
[quote][p][bold]Buttscratcher,[/bold] wrote: Seems like cleuso doesn't like being told what's what by a girl to me[/p][/quote]Yep! The Jockster
  • Score: 0

8:32pm Tue 21 Jan 14

mancrobin says...

Why all the obsession with accounts anyway. We already know what we need to know.

Is the club being run legally - yes according to the accounts filed.
Is it solvent - clearly is currently and Power says he has £1.25m to cover any contingencies until the end of the season. I assume this refers to potential legal claims.
Is there a sustainable strategy going forward - yes, which will involve a massive reduction in the wage bill.

What will any detailed or summarised version of the accounts tell us further?
Why all the obsession with accounts anyway. We already know what we need to know. Is the club being run legally - yes according to the accounts filed. Is it solvent - clearly is currently and Power says he has £1.25m to cover any contingencies until the end of the season. I assume this refers to potential legal claims. Is there a sustainable strategy going forward - yes, which will involve a massive reduction in the wage bill. What will any detailed or summarised version of the accounts tell us further? mancrobin
  • Score: 0

8:38pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Chish and Fips says...

mancrobin wrote:
Why all the obsession with accounts anyway. We already know what we need to know.

Is the club being run legally - yes according to the accounts filed.
Is it solvent - clearly is currently and Power says he has £1.25m to cover any contingencies until the end of the season. I assume this refers to potential legal claims.
Is there a sustainable strategy going forward - yes, which will involve a massive reduction in the wage bill.

What will any detailed or summarised version of the accounts tell us further?
Exactly - not only that we'll have all the Home Accountants going through it with their DIY Accountants books to hand.
[quote][p][bold]mancrobin[/bold] wrote: Why all the obsession with accounts anyway. We already know what we need to know. Is the club being run legally - yes according to the accounts filed. Is it solvent - clearly is currently and Power says he has £1.25m to cover any contingencies until the end of the season. I assume this refers to potential legal claims. Is there a sustainable strategy going forward - yes, which will involve a massive reduction in the wage bill. What will any detailed or summarised version of the accounts tell us further?[/p][/quote]Exactly - not only that we'll have all the Home Accountants going through it with their DIY Accountants books to hand. Chish and Fips
  • Score: 0

8:40pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Oi Den! says...

mancrobin wrote:
Why all the obsession with accounts anyway. We already know what we need to know.

Is the club being run legally - yes according to the accounts filed.
Is it solvent - clearly is currently and Power says he has £1.25m to cover any contingencies until the end of the season. I assume this refers to potential legal claims.
Is there a sustainable strategy going forward - yes, which will involve a massive reduction in the wage bill.

What will any detailed or summarised version of the accounts tell us further?
Manc, let's not forget it was Ms Shah who seemed to think it was very important to disclose the further accounts detail to the fans. That's where this all began.
[quote][p][bold]mancrobin[/bold] wrote: Why all the obsession with accounts anyway. We already know what we need to know. Is the club being run legally - yes according to the accounts filed. Is it solvent - clearly is currently and Power says he has £1.25m to cover any contingencies until the end of the season. I assume this refers to potential legal claims. Is there a sustainable strategy going forward - yes, which will involve a massive reduction in the wage bill. What will any detailed or summarised version of the accounts tell us further?[/p][/quote]Manc, let's not forget it was Ms Shah who seemed to think it was very important to disclose the further accounts detail to the fans. That's where this all began. Oi Den!
  • Score: 1

8:42pm Tue 21 Jan 14

lifelong red says...

does all this mean that nile ranger wont be playing on sat .
does all this mean that nile ranger wont be playing on sat . lifelong red
  • Score: 0

8:49pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Chish and Fips says...

lifelong red wrote:
does all this mean that nile ranger wont be playing on sat .
See the ' breaking news ' item ...
[quote][p][bold]lifelong red[/bold] wrote: does all this mean that nile ranger wont be playing on sat .[/p][/quote]See the ' breaking news ' item ... Chish and Fips
  • Score: 0

8:55pm Tue 21 Jan 14

whatdogirlsknowaboutfootball1 says...

Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout

football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout



football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already
And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.
Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed
So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise.... Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work.
The point being the limited accounts are closed and filed but the information on the full accounts "will not be released" ergo the Club have been advised NOT to release the full accounts and NOT to disclose all information

Nowhere in my post have I suggested the Club is under an obligation to release full details. Purely the suggestion that they come with clean hands if there is nothing to hide,while else wouldnt they

Again, read the facts, the article itself clearly states that the Club has made a decision to "withhold" certain information
Read my fuller reply to Oi Den.... the reason is perfectly valid and quite sensible unless you want the other parties in dispute to have a negotiation advantage should they reach court.
Valid or no....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn
...you said....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn....

I ask .......Why ?

Read the article fully not just the bits you want to use to try to justify or validate your theory.

There is no reason to reach your conclusions unless you have further factual evidence, which you don't have

You introduce the word -withold - in your note at 6.16pm yet you ignore the context and information within the article.

The context for the delays was quite clearly set out and explained in the article and easily understood to any one with an open mind....

Incidentally, the word, withold, never appeared at all in the article, it was first used by you. What it said was and I quote............... it was in the best interests of the club for some of the finer points of the audit to remain private for the time being.

Again you ignore the phrase "for the time being" ... doesn't preclude them being released as and when the time is appropriate. Given the previous commiment for transparency and once the legals are out of the way I antiicipate it will happen...but realistically it won't be tomorrow and I doubt we can expect that in the next few months.

What I don't understand is how you come up with your payments conspiracy theory, yet ignore the facts in the article - the advice not to disclose at this time came from the STFC legal team I suspect .....

Jockster..... imaginary theory 0 reliance on factuals 1 - you may like to rethink your observation,

.
Stfc have decided to "announce" that they will not be disclosing full and factual account details.

My point, which you continue to miss, is if there's nothing to say anything!

If the reason is genuinely in light of pending actions against us then there must be something of relevance or consequence within the accounts

If full accounts were release now, it would be moaned about BUT would also be forgotten by tomorrow (god knows I'm bored of it already)

However by not releasing full accounts, if this is indeed pertinent and relevant then the presiding judge would order full disclosure anyway and thAts when the accounts get sensationalised and all get blown out of proportion

By these actions themselves could add weight to any claimants claim

I don't need you to validate my comments. This is a FORUM where I can voice my opinion thanks and being fully aware of the juxtapose of legal argument in court...what might seem as a measure to protect the claim could be considered an admission of a case to answer
[quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already[/p][/quote]And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.[/p][/quote]Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed[/p][/quote]So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise.... Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work.[/p][/quote]The point being the limited accounts are closed and filed but the information on the full accounts "will not be released" ergo the Club have been advised NOT to release the full accounts and NOT to disclose all information Nowhere in my post have I suggested the Club is under an obligation to release full details. Purely the suggestion that they come with clean hands if there is nothing to hide,while else wouldnt they Again, read the facts, the article itself clearly states that the Club has made a decision to "withhold" certain information[/p][/quote]Read my fuller reply to Oi Den.... the reason is perfectly valid and quite sensible unless you want the other parties in dispute to have a negotiation advantage should they reach court.[/p][/quote]Valid or no....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn[/p][/quote]...you said....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn.... I ask .......Why ? Read the article fully not just the bits you want to use to try to justify or validate your theory. There is no reason to reach your conclusions unless you have further factual evidence, which you don't have You introduce the word -withold - in your note at 6.16pm yet you ignore the context and information within the article. The context for the delays was quite clearly set out and explained in the article and easily understood to any one with an open mind.... Incidentally, the word, withold, never appeared at all in the article, it was first used by you. What it said was and I quote............... it was in the best interests of the club for some of the finer points of the audit to remain private for the time being. Again you ignore the phrase "for the time being" ... doesn't preclude them being released as and when the time is appropriate. Given the previous commiment for transparency and once the legals are out of the way I antiicipate it will happen...but realistically it won't be tomorrow and I doubt we can expect that in the next few months. What I don't understand is how you come up with your payments conspiracy theory, yet ignore the facts in the article - the advice not to disclose at this time came from the STFC legal team I suspect ..... Jockster..... imaginary theory 0 reliance on factuals 1 - you may like to rethink your observation, .[/p][/quote]Stfc have decided to "announce" that they will not be disclosing full and factual account details. My point, which you continue to miss, is if there's nothing to say anything! If the reason is genuinely in light of pending actions against us then there must be something of relevance or consequence within the accounts If full accounts were release now, it would be moaned about BUT would also be forgotten by tomorrow (god knows I'm bored of it already) However by not releasing full accounts, if this is indeed pertinent and relevant then the presiding judge would order full disclosure anyway and thAts when the accounts get sensationalised and all get blown out of proportion By these actions themselves could add weight to any claimants claim I don't need you to validate my comments. This is a FORUM where I can voice my opinion thanks and being fully aware of the juxtapose of legal argument in court...what might seem as a measure to protect the claim could be considered an admission of a case to answer whatdogirlsknowaboutfootball1
  • Score: 0

9:01pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Chish and Fips says...

I had to Google ' juxtapose' never seen that word before.

Thought it was some Orange flavoured drink at first.. :o)
I had to Google ' juxtapose' never seen that word before. Thought it was some Orange flavoured drink at first.. :o) Chish and Fips
  • Score: 0

10:01pm Tue 21 Jan 14

lifelong red says...

yes new striker from charlton
yes new striker from charlton lifelong red
  • Score: 0

10:01pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Cleuso says...

whatdogirlsknowabout
football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout


football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout




football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already
And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.
Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed
So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise.... Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work.
The point being the limited accounts are closed and filed but the information on the full accounts "will not be released" ergo the Club have been advised NOT to release the full accounts and NOT to disclose all information

Nowhere in my post have I suggested the Club is under an obligation to release full details. Purely the suggestion that they come with clean hands if there is nothing to hide,while else wouldnt they

Again, read the facts, the article itself clearly states that the Club has made a decision to "withhold" certain information
Read my fuller reply to Oi Den.... the reason is perfectly valid and quite sensible unless you want the other parties in dispute to have a negotiation advantage should they reach court.
Valid or no....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn
...you said....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn....

I ask .......Why ?

Read the article fully not just the bits you want to use to try to justify or validate your theory.

There is no reason to reach your conclusions unless you have further factual evidence, which you don't have

You introduce the word -withold - in your note at 6.16pm yet you ignore the context and information within the article.

The context for the delays was quite clearly set out and explained in the article and easily understood to any one with an open mind....

Incidentally, the word, withold, never appeared at all in the article, it was first used by you. What it said was and I quote............... it was in the best interests of the club for some of the finer points of the audit to remain private for the time being.

Again you ignore the phrase "for the time being" ... doesn't preclude them being released as and when the time is appropriate. Given the previous commiment for transparency and once the legals are out of the way I antiicipate it will happen...but realistically it won't be tomorrow and I doubt we can expect that in the next few months.

What I don't understand is how you come up with your payments conspiracy theory, yet ignore the facts in the article - the advice not to disclose at this time came from the STFC legal team I suspect .....

Jockster..... imaginary theory 0 reliance on factuals 1 - you may like to rethink your observation,

.
Stfc have decided to "announce" that they will not be disclosing full and factual account details.

My point, which you continue to miss, is if there's nothing to say anything!

If the reason is genuinely in light of pending actions against us then there must be something of relevance or consequence within the accounts

If full accounts were release now, it would be moaned about BUT would also be forgotten by tomorrow (god knows I'm bored of it already)

However by not releasing full accounts, if this is indeed pertinent and relevant then the presiding judge would order full disclosure anyway and thAts when the accounts get sensationalised and all get blown out of proportion

By these actions themselves could add weight to any claimants claim

I don't need you to validate my comments. This is a FORUM where I can voice my opinion thanks and being fully aware of the juxtapose of legal argument in court...what might seem as a measure to protect the claim could be considered an admission of a case to answer
Of course you can post anything you like..others on here seem to have loads of imagination...OR agendas which has nothing to do with facts.

There may well be something pertinent in the accounts, there may be not, but I don't have a clue if that is the case or not, neither would I suggest from our discussion do you. Do I worry about that no, do I need to see the accounts to satisfy my curiosity immediately no.

I really don't know which artilcle you refer to as wheredoes it say this used in your opening line

Stfc have decided to "announce" that they will not be disclosing full and factual account details.

The word factual is not used at all, neither is the rest of the statement used well not that I can see anywhere perhaps you will tell me where it is..until then, can't see we will ever be on the same wavelength or understanding and those that love to dish out negative and support conspiracy theories on here will contiunue to support your position
[quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already[/p][/quote]And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.[/p][/quote]Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed[/p][/quote]So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise.... Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work.[/p][/quote]The point being the limited accounts are closed and filed but the information on the full accounts "will not be released" ergo the Club have been advised NOT to release the full accounts and NOT to disclose all information Nowhere in my post have I suggested the Club is under an obligation to release full details. Purely the suggestion that they come with clean hands if there is nothing to hide,while else wouldnt they Again, read the facts, the article itself clearly states that the Club has made a decision to "withhold" certain information[/p][/quote]Read my fuller reply to Oi Den.... the reason is perfectly valid and quite sensible unless you want the other parties in dispute to have a negotiation advantage should they reach court.[/p][/quote]Valid or no....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn[/p][/quote]...you said....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn.... I ask .......Why ? Read the article fully not just the bits you want to use to try to justify or validate your theory. There is no reason to reach your conclusions unless you have further factual evidence, which you don't have You introduce the word -withold - in your note at 6.16pm yet you ignore the context and information within the article. The context for the delays was quite clearly set out and explained in the article and easily understood to any one with an open mind.... Incidentally, the word, withold, never appeared at all in the article, it was first used by you. What it said was and I quote............... it was in the best interests of the club for some of the finer points of the audit to remain private for the time being. Again you ignore the phrase "for the time being" ... doesn't preclude them being released as and when the time is appropriate. Given the previous commiment for transparency and once the legals are out of the way I antiicipate it will happen...but realistically it won't be tomorrow and I doubt we can expect that in the next few months. What I don't understand is how you come up with your payments conspiracy theory, yet ignore the facts in the article - the advice not to disclose at this time came from the STFC legal team I suspect ..... Jockster..... imaginary theory 0 reliance on factuals 1 - you may like to rethink your observation, .[/p][/quote]Stfc have decided to "announce" that they will not be disclosing full and factual account details. My point, which you continue to miss, is if there's nothing to say anything! If the reason is genuinely in light of pending actions against us then there must be something of relevance or consequence within the accounts If full accounts were release now, it would be moaned about BUT would also be forgotten by tomorrow (god knows I'm bored of it already) However by not releasing full accounts, if this is indeed pertinent and relevant then the presiding judge would order full disclosure anyway and thAts when the accounts get sensationalised and all get blown out of proportion By these actions themselves could add weight to any claimants claim I don't need you to validate my comments. This is a FORUM where I can voice my opinion thanks and being fully aware of the juxtapose of legal argument in court...what might seem as a measure to protect the claim could be considered an admission of a case to answer[/p][/quote]Of course you can post anything you like..others on here seem to have loads of imagination...OR agendas which has nothing to do with facts. There may well be something pertinent in the accounts, there may be not, but I don't have a clue if that is the case or not, neither would I suggest from our discussion do you. Do I worry about that no, do I need to see the accounts to satisfy my curiosity immediately no. I really don't know which artilcle you refer to as wheredoes it say this used in your opening line Stfc have decided to "announce" that they will not be disclosing full and factual account details. The word factual is not used at all, neither is the rest of the statement used well not that I can see anywhere perhaps you will tell me where it is..until then, can't see we will ever be on the same wavelength or understanding and those that love to dish out negative and support conspiracy theories on here will contiunue to support your position Cleuso
  • Score: 0

10:17pm Tue 21 Jan 14

whatdogirlsknowaboutfootball1 says...

Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout

football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout



football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout





football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already
And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.
Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed
So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise.... Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work.
The point being the limited accounts are closed and filed but the information on the full accounts "will not be released" ergo the Club have been advised NOT to release the full accounts and NOT to disclose all information

Nowhere in my post have I suggested the Club is under an obligation to release full details. Purely the suggestion that they come with clean hands if there is nothing to hide,while else wouldnt they

Again, read the facts, the article itself clearly states that the Club has made a decision to "withhold" certain information
Read my fuller reply to Oi Den.... the reason is perfectly valid and quite sensible unless you want the other parties in dispute to have a negotiation advantage should they reach court.
Valid or no....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn
...you said....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn....

I ask .......Why ?

Read the article fully not just the bits you want to use to try to justify or validate your theory.

There is no reason to reach your conclusions unless you have further factual evidence, which you don't have

You introduce the word -withold - in your note at 6.16pm yet you ignore the context and information within the article.

The context for the delays was quite clearly set out and explained in the article and easily understood to any one with an open mind....

Incidentally, the word, withold, never appeared at all in the article, it was first used by you. What it said was and I quote............... it was in the best interests of the club for some of the finer points of the audit to remain private for the time being.

Again you ignore the phrase "for the time being" ... doesn't preclude them being released as and when the time is appropriate. Given the previous commiment for transparency and once the legals are out of the way I antiicipate it will happen...but realistically it won't be tomorrow and I doubt we can expect that in the next few months.

What I don't understand is how you come up with your payments conspiracy theory, yet ignore the facts in the article - the advice not to disclose at this time came from the STFC legal team I suspect .....

Jockster..... imaginary theory 0 reliance on factuals 1 - you may like to rethink your observation,

.
Stfc have decided to "announce" that they will not be disclosing full and factual account details.

My point, which you continue to miss, is if there's nothing to say anything!

If the reason is genuinely in light of pending actions against us then there must be something of relevance or consequence within the accounts

If full accounts were release now, it would be moaned about BUT would also be forgotten by tomorrow (god knows I'm bored of it already)

However by not releasing full accounts, if this is indeed pertinent and relevant then the presiding judge would order full disclosure anyway and thAts when the accounts get sensationalised and all get blown out of proportion

By these actions themselves could add weight to any claimants claim

I don't need you to validate my comments. This is a FORUM where I can voice my opinion thanks and being fully aware of the juxtapose of legal argument in court...what might seem as a measure to protect the claim could be considered an admission of a case to answer
Of course you can post anything you like..others on here seem to have loads of imagination...OR agendas which has nothing to do with facts.

There may well be something pertinent in the accounts, there may be not, but I don't have a clue if that is the case or not, neither would I suggest from our discussion do you. Do I worry about that no, do I need to see the accounts to satisfy my curiosity immediately no.

I really don't know which artilcle you refer to as wheredoes it say this used in your opening line

Stfc have decided to "announce" that they will not be disclosing full and factual account details.

The word factual is not used at all, neither is the rest of the statement used well not that I can see anywhere perhaps you will tell me where it is..until then, can't see we will ever be on the same wavelength or understanding and those that love to dish out negative and support conspiracy theories on here will contiunue to support your position
No. 1 bored already
No. 2 accounts (bare bones) have been filed but full accounts (the meat) will not be released for reasons mentioned in the article (aka partial disclosure)
No. 3 when I mention 3rd party payments blah blah I was being sarcastic that this is what people are going to want to see and moan about so let's get on with it
No. 4 I said let's be open and honest so we can move on already and I wholeheartedly stand by that remark
No. 5 bored already
[quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already[/p][/quote]And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.[/p][/quote]Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed[/p][/quote]So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise.... Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work.[/p][/quote]The point being the limited accounts are closed and filed but the information on the full accounts "will not be released" ergo the Club have been advised NOT to release the full accounts and NOT to disclose all information Nowhere in my post have I suggested the Club is under an obligation to release full details. Purely the suggestion that they come with clean hands if there is nothing to hide,while else wouldnt they Again, read the facts, the article itself clearly states that the Club has made a decision to "withhold" certain information[/p][/quote]Read my fuller reply to Oi Den.... the reason is perfectly valid and quite sensible unless you want the other parties in dispute to have a negotiation advantage should they reach court.[/p][/quote]Valid or no....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn[/p][/quote]...you said....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn.... I ask .......Why ? Read the article fully not just the bits you want to use to try to justify or validate your theory. There is no reason to reach your conclusions unless you have further factual evidence, which you don't have You introduce the word -withold - in your note at 6.16pm yet you ignore the context and information within the article. The context for the delays was quite clearly set out and explained in the article and easily understood to any one with an open mind.... Incidentally, the word, withold, never appeared at all in the article, it was first used by you. What it said was and I quote............... it was in the best interests of the club for some of the finer points of the audit to remain private for the time being. Again you ignore the phrase "for the time being" ... doesn't preclude them being released as and when the time is appropriate. Given the previous commiment for transparency and once the legals are out of the way I antiicipate it will happen...but realistically it won't be tomorrow and I doubt we can expect that in the next few months. What I don't understand is how you come up with your payments conspiracy theory, yet ignore the facts in the article - the advice not to disclose at this time came from the STFC legal team I suspect ..... Jockster..... imaginary theory 0 reliance on factuals 1 - you may like to rethink your observation, .[/p][/quote]Stfc have decided to "announce" that they will not be disclosing full and factual account details. My point, which you continue to miss, is if there's nothing to say anything! If the reason is genuinely in light of pending actions against us then there must be something of relevance or consequence within the accounts If full accounts were release now, it would be moaned about BUT would also be forgotten by tomorrow (god knows I'm bored of it already) However by not releasing full accounts, if this is indeed pertinent and relevant then the presiding judge would order full disclosure anyway and thAts when the accounts get sensationalised and all get blown out of proportion By these actions themselves could add weight to any claimants claim I don't need you to validate my comments. This is a FORUM where I can voice my opinion thanks and being fully aware of the juxtapose of legal argument in court...what might seem as a measure to protect the claim could be considered an admission of a case to answer[/p][/quote]Of course you can post anything you like..others on here seem to have loads of imagination...OR agendas which has nothing to do with facts. There may well be something pertinent in the accounts, there may be not, but I don't have a clue if that is the case or not, neither would I suggest from our discussion do you. Do I worry about that no, do I need to see the accounts to satisfy my curiosity immediately no. I really don't know which artilcle you refer to as wheredoes it say this used in your opening line Stfc have decided to "announce" that they will not be disclosing full and factual account details. The word factual is not used at all, neither is the rest of the statement used well not that I can see anywhere perhaps you will tell me where it is..until then, can't see we will ever be on the same wavelength or understanding and those that love to dish out negative and support conspiracy theories on here will contiunue to support your position[/p][/quote]No. 1 bored already No. 2 accounts (bare bones) have been filed but full accounts (the meat) will not be released for reasons mentioned in the article (aka partial disclosure) No. 3 when I mention 3rd party payments blah blah I was being sarcastic that this is what people are going to want to see and moan about so let's get on with it No. 4 I said let's be open and honest so we can move on already and I wholeheartedly stand by that remark No. 5 bored already whatdogirlsknowaboutfootball1
  • Score: 0

10:29pm Tue 21 Jan 14

alchafreds says...

Chish and Fips wrote:
I had to Google ' juxtapose' never seen that word before.

Thought it was some Orange flavoured drink at first.. :o)
qaulity ; )
[quote][p][bold]Chish and Fips[/bold] wrote: I had to Google ' juxtapose' never seen that word before. Thought it was some Orange flavoured drink at first.. :o)[/p][/quote]qaulity ; ) alchafreds
  • Score: 0

10:42pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Oxon-Red says...

Said earlier the past is gone, can't be changed and we are where we are. I see three outstanding problems this season, all in court. Summer brings a removal of expensive players who are not playing and the chance to replace them with some that might.

We have a decent young squad, with or without the loanees and they should only get better. As a season ticket holder I have seen some great football and some great goals. Seen some pike (for Steve from Brentford) as well but saw that on occasions for the last 4-5 season.

Jed's gone, Wray's gone, Black's gone, Paolo's gone. I am grateful to each one in one way or other but feel it is now time to look forward because as a fan I AM STILL HERE, my Club is still in business and I will be there on Saturday supporting whatever 11-14 players represent the team on the pitch.

The Future is Red...

...COME ON YOU MIGHTY REDS
Said earlier the past is gone, can't be changed and we are where we are. I see three outstanding problems this season, all in court. Summer brings a removal of expensive players who are not playing and the chance to replace them with some that might. We have a decent young squad, with or without the loanees and they should only get better. As a season ticket holder I have seen some great football and some great goals. Seen some pike (for Steve from Brentford) as well but saw that on occasions for the last 4-5 season. Jed's gone, Wray's gone, Black's gone, Paolo's gone. I am grateful to each one in one way or other but feel it is now time to look forward because as a fan I AM STILL HERE, my Club is still in business and I will be there on Saturday supporting whatever 11-14 players represent the team on the pitch. The Future is Red... ...COME ON YOU MIGHTY REDS Oxon-Red
  • Score: 2

10:42pm Tue 21 Jan 14

mancrobin says...

Oi Den! wrote:
mancrobin wrote:
Why all the obsession with accounts anyway. We already know what we need to know.

Is the club being run legally - yes according to the accounts filed.
Is it solvent - clearly is currently and Power says he has £1.25m to cover any contingencies until the end of the season. I assume this refers to potential legal claims.
Is there a sustainable strategy going forward - yes, which will involve a massive reduction in the wage bill.

What will any detailed or summarised version of the accounts tell us further?
Manc, let's not forget it was Ms Shah who seemed to think it was very important to disclose the further accounts detail to the fans. That's where this all began.
Fair enough Den and it would do much for their credibility if they published them. I just don't think it will tell us much we don't already know
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mancrobin[/bold] wrote: Why all the obsession with accounts anyway. We already know what we need to know. Is the club being run legally - yes according to the accounts filed. Is it solvent - clearly is currently and Power says he has £1.25m to cover any contingencies until the end of the season. I assume this refers to potential legal claims. Is there a sustainable strategy going forward - yes, which will involve a massive reduction in the wage bill. What will any detailed or summarised version of the accounts tell us further?[/p][/quote]Manc, let's not forget it was Ms Shah who seemed to think it was very important to disclose the further accounts detail to the fans. That's where this all began.[/p][/quote]Fair enough Den and it would do much for their credibility if they published them. I just don't think it will tell us much we don't already know mancrobin
  • Score: 0

1:01am Wed 22 Jan 14

joey butler says...

whatdogirlsknowabout
football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout


football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout




football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout






football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already
And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.
Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed
So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise.... Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work.
The point being the limited accounts are closed and filed but the information on the full accounts "will not be released" ergo the Club have been advised NOT to release the full accounts and NOT to disclose all information

Nowhere in my post have I suggested the Club is under an obligation to release full details. Purely the suggestion that they come with clean hands if there is nothing to hide,while else wouldnt they

Again, read the facts, the article itself clearly states that the Club has made a decision to "withhold" certain information
Read my fuller reply to Oi Den.... the reason is perfectly valid and quite sensible unless you want the other parties in dispute to have a negotiation advantage should they reach court.
Valid or no....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn
...you said....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn....

I ask .......Why ?

Read the article fully not just the bits you want to use to try to justify or validate your theory.

There is no reason to reach your conclusions unless you have further factual evidence, which you don't have

You introduce the word -withold - in your note at 6.16pm yet you ignore the context and information within the article.

The context for the delays was quite clearly set out and explained in the article and easily understood to any one with an open mind....

Incidentally, the word, withold, never appeared at all in the article, it was first used by you. What it said was and I quote............... it was in the best interests of the club for some of the finer points of the audit to remain private for the time being.

Again you ignore the phrase "for the time being" ... doesn't preclude them being released as and when the time is appropriate. Given the previous commiment for transparency and once the legals are out of the way I antiicipate it will happen...but realistically it won't be tomorrow and I doubt we can expect that in the next few months.

What I don't understand is how you come up with your payments conspiracy theory, yet ignore the facts in the article - the advice not to disclose at this time came from the STFC legal team I suspect .....

Jockster..... imaginary theory 0 reliance on factuals 1 - you may like to rethink your observation,

.
Stfc have decided to "announce" that they will not be disclosing full and factual account details.

My point, which you continue to miss, is if there's nothing to say anything!

If the reason is genuinely in light of pending actions against us then there must be something of relevance or consequence within the accounts

If full accounts were release now, it would be moaned about BUT would also be forgotten by tomorrow (god knows I'm bored of it already)

However by not releasing full accounts, if this is indeed pertinent and relevant then the presiding judge would order full disclosure anyway and thAts when the accounts get sensationalised and all get blown out of proportion

By these actions themselves could add weight to any claimants claim

I don't need you to validate my comments. This is a FORUM where I can voice my opinion thanks and being fully aware of the juxtapose of legal argument in court...what might seem as a measure to protect the claim could be considered an admission of a case to answer
Of course you can post anything you like..others on here seem to have loads of imagination...OR agendas which has nothing to do with facts.

There may well be something pertinent in the accounts, there may be not, but I don't have a clue if that is the case or not, neither would I suggest from our discussion do you. Do I worry about that no, do I need to see the accounts to satisfy my curiosity immediately no.

I really don't know which artilcle you refer to as wheredoes it say this used in your opening line

Stfc have decided to "announce" that they will not be disclosing full and factual account details.

The word factual is not used at all, neither is the rest of the statement used well not that I can see anywhere perhaps you will tell me where it is..until then, can't see we will ever be on the same wavelength or understanding and those that love to dish out negative and support conspiracy theories on here will contiunue to support your position
No. 1 bored already
No. 2 accounts (bare bones) have been filed but full accounts (the meat) will not be released for reasons mentioned in the article (aka partial disclosure)
No. 3 when I mention 3rd party payments blah blah I was being sarcastic that this is what people are going to want to see and moan about so let's get on with it
No. 4 I said let's be open and honest so we can move on already and I wholeheartedly stand by that remark
No. 5 bored already
Good to see the rather pathetic Cleuso getting a good pasting on here tonight, which is very long overdue.

You are a small insignificant dick Cleuso, who enjoys insulting many people, including me, but the Lady poster this evening has simply run rings around you, several times!!!
[quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already[/p][/quote]And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.[/p][/quote]Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed[/p][/quote]So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise.... Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work.[/p][/quote]The point being the limited accounts are closed and filed but the information on the full accounts "will not be released" ergo the Club have been advised NOT to release the full accounts and NOT to disclose all information Nowhere in my post have I suggested the Club is under an obligation to release full details. Purely the suggestion that they come with clean hands if there is nothing to hide,while else wouldnt they Again, read the facts, the article itself clearly states that the Club has made a decision to "withhold" certain information[/p][/quote]Read my fuller reply to Oi Den.... the reason is perfectly valid and quite sensible unless you want the other parties in dispute to have a negotiation advantage should they reach court.[/p][/quote]Valid or no....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn[/p][/quote]...you said....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn.... I ask .......Why ? Read the article fully not just the bits you want to use to try to justify or validate your theory. There is no reason to reach your conclusions unless you have further factual evidence, which you don't have You introduce the word -withold - in your note at 6.16pm yet you ignore the context and information within the article. The context for the delays was quite clearly set out and explained in the article and easily understood to any one with an open mind.... Incidentally, the word, withold, never appeared at all in the article, it was first used by you. What it said was and I quote............... it was in the best interests of the club for some of the finer points of the audit to remain private for the time being. Again you ignore the phrase "for the time being" ... doesn't preclude them being released as and when the time is appropriate. Given the previous commiment for transparency and once the legals are out of the way I antiicipate it will happen...but realistically it won't be tomorrow and I doubt we can expect that in the next few months. What I don't understand is how you come up with your payments conspiracy theory, yet ignore the facts in the article - the advice not to disclose at this time came from the STFC legal team I suspect ..... Jockster..... imaginary theory 0 reliance on factuals 1 - you may like to rethink your observation, .[/p][/quote]Stfc have decided to "announce" that they will not be disclosing full and factual account details. My point, which you continue to miss, is if there's nothing to say anything! If the reason is genuinely in light of pending actions against us then there must be something of relevance or consequence within the accounts If full accounts were release now, it would be moaned about BUT would also be forgotten by tomorrow (god knows I'm bored of it already) However by not releasing full accounts, if this is indeed pertinent and relevant then the presiding judge would order full disclosure anyway and thAts when the accounts get sensationalised and all get blown out of proportion By these actions themselves could add weight to any claimants claim I don't need you to validate my comments. This is a FORUM where I can voice my opinion thanks and being fully aware of the juxtapose of legal argument in court...what might seem as a measure to protect the claim could be considered an admission of a case to answer[/p][/quote]Of course you can post anything you like..others on here seem to have loads of imagination...OR agendas which has nothing to do with facts. There may well be something pertinent in the accounts, there may be not, but I don't have a clue if that is the case or not, neither would I suggest from our discussion do you. Do I worry about that no, do I need to see the accounts to satisfy my curiosity immediately no. I really don't know which artilcle you refer to as wheredoes it say this used in your opening line Stfc have decided to "announce" that they will not be disclosing full and factual account details. The word factual is not used at all, neither is the rest of the statement used well not that I can see anywhere perhaps you will tell me where it is..until then, can't see we will ever be on the same wavelength or understanding and those that love to dish out negative and support conspiracy theories on here will contiunue to support your position[/p][/quote]No. 1 bored already No. 2 accounts (bare bones) have been filed but full accounts (the meat) will not be released for reasons mentioned in the article (aka partial disclosure) No. 3 when I mention 3rd party payments blah blah I was being sarcastic that this is what people are going to want to see and moan about so let's get on with it No. 4 I said let's be open and honest so we can move on already and I wholeheartedly stand by that remark No. 5 bored already[/p][/quote]Good to see the rather pathetic Cleuso getting a good pasting on here tonight, which is very long overdue. You are a small insignificant dick Cleuso, who enjoys insulting many people, including me, but the Lady poster this evening has simply run rings around you, several times!!! joey butler
  • Score: 0

6:34am Wed 22 Jan 14

Chish and Fips says...

See Ajose got Posh out of trouble last night against 10 man Notts Co. - could have spelt disaster for Ferguson junior.... nice hat trick for NA and DF still has his job.
Man sent off for Notts a certain Ronan Murray.
See Ajose got Posh out of trouble last night against 10 man Notts Co. - could have spelt disaster for Ferguson junior.... nice hat trick for NA and DF still has his job. Man sent off for Notts a certain Ronan Murray. Chish and Fips
  • Score: 0

9:06am Wed 22 Jan 14

redrobin-69 says...

Anyone out there blaming Watkins and AB clearly have memeory loss. AB provided over 10 mils worth of funding, and didn't take a penny out; Watkins achieved operating profit in a football club and built a back room team who had the club's interests at heart. He was also a genuine man who connected with all us regular punters. He had no say as to what player were brought in - that was down to Wray, and I recall the upset when that tit Patey stepped in as chairman to replace JW. Perhaps everyone's at fault for getting carried away with the PDC circus, but what a circus it was while it lasted. But in every circus, there are clowns and PDC was the clown ring leader - everyone was at fault for being fooled by the disguise. Compare that clan - NW/JW/AB with the moron that is McCroy - the man hid leased cars, and didn't pay local business - we had bayliffs taking back club shop shutters - pathetic. Let's be grateful we have a football club that is in a reasonable state and stop forgetting the good times. At the end of the day, it's not our cash
Anyone out there blaming Watkins and AB clearly have memeory loss. AB provided over 10 mils worth of funding, and didn't take a penny out; Watkins achieved operating profit in a football club and built a back room team who had the club's interests at heart. He was also a genuine man who connected with all us regular punters. He had no say as to what player were brought in - that was down to Wray, and I recall the upset when that tit Patey stepped in as chairman to replace JW. Perhaps everyone's at fault for getting carried away with the PDC circus, but what a circus it was while it lasted. But in every circus, there are clowns and PDC was the clown ring leader - everyone was at fault for being fooled by the disguise. Compare that clan - NW/JW/AB with the moron that is McCroy - the man hid leased cars, and didn't pay local business - we had bayliffs taking back club shop shutters - pathetic. Let's be grateful we have a football club that is in a reasonable state and stop forgetting the good times. At the end of the day, it's not our cash redrobin-69
  • Score: 1

9:12am Wed 22 Jan 14

The Jockster says...

Joey I reckon Cleuso is a Des O'Connor fan! He must've been listening to Des's "hit" - Dickadumbdumb lol! -:)
Joey I reckon Cleuso is a Des O'Connor fan! He must've been listening to Des's "hit" - Dickadumbdumb lol! -:) The Jockster
  • Score: 0

9:24am Wed 22 Jan 14

Chish and Fips says...

The Jockster wrote:
Joey I reckon Cleuso is a Des O'Connor fan! He must've been listening to Des's "hit" - Dickadumbdumb lol! -:)
Oh dear Jock you get worse - very catty and transparent ... :O(

Cleuso is entitled to his opinion and to stand his ground with what really was quite a discussion, please note he done this without getting abusive or any childish name calling that others sink to.

Your matchday posts are good - shame you didn't stick to your words and stop posting in between.
or just stick to the Ch4 Racing bore me to tears on some other site.
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: Joey I reckon Cleuso is a Des O'Connor fan! He must've been listening to Des's "hit" - Dickadumbdumb lol! -:)[/p][/quote]Oh dear Jock you get worse - very catty and transparent ... :O( Cleuso is entitled to his opinion and to stand his ground with what really was quite a discussion, please note he done this without getting abusive or any childish name calling that others sink to. Your matchday posts are good - shame you didn't stick to your words and stop posting in between. or just stick to the Ch4 Racing bore me to tears on some other site. Chish and Fips
  • Score: 0

9:53am Wed 22 Jan 14

Cleuso says...

joey butler wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout

football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout



football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout





football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout







football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already
And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.
Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed
So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise.... Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work.
The point being the limited accounts are closed and filed but the information on the full accounts "will not be released" ergo the Club have been advised NOT to release the full accounts and NOT to disclose all information

Nowhere in my post have I suggested the Club is under an obligation to release full details. Purely the suggestion that they come with clean hands if there is nothing to hide,while else wouldnt they

Again, read the facts, the article itself clearly states that the Club has made a decision to "withhold" certain information
Read my fuller reply to Oi Den.... the reason is perfectly valid and quite sensible unless you want the other parties in dispute to have a negotiation advantage should they reach court.
Valid or no....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn
...you said....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn....

I ask .......Why ?

Read the article fully not just the bits you want to use to try to justify or validate your theory.

There is no reason to reach your conclusions unless you have further factual evidence, which you don't have

You introduce the word -withold - in your note at 6.16pm yet you ignore the context and information within the article.

The context for the delays was quite clearly set out and explained in the article and easily understood to any one with an open mind....

Incidentally, the word, withold, never appeared at all in the article, it was first used by you. What it said was and I quote............... it was in the best interests of the club for some of the finer points of the audit to remain private for the time being.

Again you ignore the phrase "for the time being" ... doesn't preclude them being released as and when the time is appropriate. Given the previous commiment for transparency and once the legals are out of the way I antiicipate it will happen...but realistically it won't be tomorrow and I doubt we can expect that in the next few months.

What I don't understand is how you come up with your payments conspiracy theory, yet ignore the facts in the article - the advice not to disclose at this time came from the STFC legal team I suspect .....

Jockster..... imaginary theory 0 reliance on factuals 1 - you may like to rethink your observation,

.
Stfc have decided to "announce" that they will not be disclosing full and factual account details.

My point, which you continue to miss, is if there's nothing to say anything!

If the reason is genuinely in light of pending actions against us then there must be something of relevance or consequence within the accounts

If full accounts were release now, it would be moaned about BUT would also be forgotten by tomorrow (god knows I'm bored of it already)

However by not releasing full accounts, if this is indeed pertinent and relevant then the presiding judge would order full disclosure anyway and thAts when the accounts get sensationalised and all get blown out of proportion

By these actions themselves could add weight to any claimants claim

I don't need you to validate my comments. This is a FORUM where I can voice my opinion thanks and being fully aware of the juxtapose of legal argument in court...what might seem as a measure to protect the claim could be considered an admission of a case to answer
Of course you can post anything you like..others on here seem to have loads of imagination...OR agendas which has nothing to do with facts.

There may well be something pertinent in the accounts, there may be not, but I don't have a clue if that is the case or not, neither would I suggest from our discussion do you. Do I worry about that no, do I need to see the accounts to satisfy my curiosity immediately no.

I really don't know which artilcle you refer to as wheredoes it say this used in your opening line

Stfc have decided to "announce" that they will not be disclosing full and factual account details.

The word factual is not used at all, neither is the rest of the statement used well not that I can see anywhere perhaps you will tell me where it is..until then, can't see we will ever be on the same wavelength or understanding and those that love to dish out negative and support conspiracy theories on here will contiunue to support your position
No. 1 bored already
No. 2 accounts (bare bones) have been filed but full accounts (the meat) will not be released for reasons mentioned in the article (aka partial disclosure)
No. 3 when I mention 3rd party payments blah blah I was being sarcastic that this is what people are going to want to see and moan about so let's get on with it
No. 4 I said let's be open and honest so we can move on already and I wholeheartedly stand by that remark
No. 5 bored already
Good to see the rather pathetic Cleuso getting a good pasting on here tonight, which is very long overdue.

You are a small insignificant dick Cleuso, who enjoys insulting many people, including me, but the Lady poster this evening has simply run rings around you, several times!!!
Maybe Jockster, but not in a loving or factual way, something you seem to revel in.
[quote][p][bold]joey butler[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already[/p][/quote]And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.[/p][/quote]Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed[/p][/quote]So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise.... Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work.[/p][/quote]The point being the limited accounts are closed and filed but the information on the full accounts "will not be released" ergo the Club have been advised NOT to release the full accounts and NOT to disclose all information Nowhere in my post have I suggested the Club is under an obligation to release full details. Purely the suggestion that they come with clean hands if there is nothing to hide,while else wouldnt they Again, read the facts, the article itself clearly states that the Club has made a decision to "withhold" certain information[/p][/quote]Read my fuller reply to Oi Den.... the reason is perfectly valid and quite sensible unless you want the other parties in dispute to have a negotiation advantage should they reach court.[/p][/quote]Valid or no....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn[/p][/quote]...you said....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn.... I ask .......Why ? Read the article fully not just the bits you want to use to try to justify or validate your theory. There is no reason to reach your conclusions unless you have further factual evidence, which you don't have You introduce the word -withold - in your note at 6.16pm yet you ignore the context and information within the article. The context for the delays was quite clearly set out and explained in the article and easily understood to any one with an open mind.... Incidentally, the word, withold, never appeared at all in the article, it was first used by you. What it said was and I quote............... it was in the best interests of the club for some of the finer points of the audit to remain private for the time being. Again you ignore the phrase "for the time being" ... doesn't preclude them being released as and when the time is appropriate. Given the previous commiment for transparency and once the legals are out of the way I antiicipate it will happen...but realistically it won't be tomorrow and I doubt we can expect that in the next few months. What I don't understand is how you come up with your payments conspiracy theory, yet ignore the facts in the article - the advice not to disclose at this time came from the STFC legal team I suspect ..... Jockster..... imaginary theory 0 reliance on factuals 1 - you may like to rethink your observation, .[/p][/quote]Stfc have decided to "announce" that they will not be disclosing full and factual account details. My point, which you continue to miss, is if there's nothing to say anything! If the reason is genuinely in light of pending actions against us then there must be something of relevance or consequence within the accounts If full accounts were release now, it would be moaned about BUT would also be forgotten by tomorrow (god knows I'm bored of it already) However by not releasing full accounts, if this is indeed pertinent and relevant then the presiding judge would order full disclosure anyway and thAts when the accounts get sensationalised and all get blown out of proportion By these actions themselves could add weight to any claimants claim I don't need you to validate my comments. This is a FORUM where I can voice my opinion thanks and being fully aware of the juxtapose of legal argument in court...what might seem as a measure to protect the claim could be considered an admission of a case to answer[/p][/quote]Of course you can post anything you like..others on here seem to have loads of imagination...OR agendas which has nothing to do with facts. There may well be something pertinent in the accounts, there may be not, but I don't have a clue if that is the case or not, neither would I suggest from our discussion do you. Do I worry about that no, do I need to see the accounts to satisfy my curiosity immediately no. I really don't know which artilcle you refer to as wheredoes it say this used in your opening line Stfc have decided to "announce" that they will not be disclosing full and factual account details. The word factual is not used at all, neither is the rest of the statement used well not that I can see anywhere perhaps you will tell me where it is..until then, can't see we will ever be on the same wavelength or understanding and those that love to dish out negative and support conspiracy theories on here will contiunue to support your position[/p][/quote]No. 1 bored already No. 2 accounts (bare bones) have been filed but full accounts (the meat) will not be released for reasons mentioned in the article (aka partial disclosure) No. 3 when I mention 3rd party payments blah blah I was being sarcastic that this is what people are going to want to see and moan about so let's get on with it No. 4 I said let's be open and honest so we can move on already and I wholeheartedly stand by that remark No. 5 bored already[/p][/quote]Good to see the rather pathetic Cleuso getting a good pasting on here tonight, which is very long overdue. You are a small insignificant dick Cleuso, who enjoys insulting many people, including me, but the Lady poster this evening has simply run rings around you, several times!!![/p][/quote]Maybe Jockster, but not in a loving or factual way, something you seem to revel in. Cleuso
  • Score: 0

9:59am Wed 22 Jan 14

Chish and Fips says...

Cleuso wrote:
joey butler wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout


football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout




football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout






football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout








football1
wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote:
Cleuso wrote:
whatdogirlsknowabout football1 wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already
And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.
Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed
So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise.... Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work.
The point being the limited accounts are closed and filed but the information on the full accounts "will not be released" ergo the Club have been advised NOT to release the full accounts and NOT to disclose all information

Nowhere in my post have I suggested the Club is under an obligation to release full details. Purely the suggestion that they come with clean hands if there is nothing to hide,while else wouldnt they

Again, read the facts, the article itself clearly states that the Club has made a decision to "withhold" certain information
Read my fuller reply to Oi Den.... the reason is perfectly valid and quite sensible unless you want the other parties in dispute to have a negotiation advantage should they reach court.
Valid or no....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn
...you said....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn....

I ask .......Why ?

Read the article fully not just the bits you want to use to try to justify or validate your theory.

There is no reason to reach your conclusions unless you have further factual evidence, which you don't have

You introduce the word -withold - in your note at 6.16pm yet you ignore the context and information within the article.

The context for the delays was quite clearly set out and explained in the article and easily understood to any one with an open mind....

Incidentally, the word, withold, never appeared at all in the article, it was first used by you. What it said was and I quote............... it was in the best interests of the club for some of the finer points of the audit to remain private for the time being.

Again you ignore the phrase "for the time being" ... doesn't preclude them being released as and when the time is appropriate. Given the previous commiment for transparency and once the legals are out of the way I antiicipate it will happen...but realistically it won't be tomorrow and I doubt we can expect that in the next few months.

What I don't understand is how you come up with your payments conspiracy theory, yet ignore the facts in the article - the advice not to disclose at this time came from the STFC legal team I suspect .....

Jockster..... imaginary theory 0 reliance on factuals 1 - you may like to rethink your observation,

.
Stfc have decided to "announce" that they will not be disclosing full and factual account details.

My point, which you continue to miss, is if there's nothing to say anything!

If the reason is genuinely in light of pending actions against us then there must be something of relevance or consequence within the accounts

If full accounts were release now, it would be moaned about BUT would also be forgotten by tomorrow (god knows I'm bored of it already)

However by not releasing full accounts, if this is indeed pertinent and relevant then the presiding judge would order full disclosure anyway and thAts when the accounts get sensationalised and all get blown out of proportion

By these actions themselves could add weight to any claimants claim

I don't need you to validate my comments. This is a FORUM where I can voice my opinion thanks and being fully aware of the juxtapose of legal argument in court...what might seem as a measure to protect the claim could be considered an admission of a case to answer
Of course you can post anything you like..others on here seem to have loads of imagination...OR agendas which has nothing to do with facts.

There may well be something pertinent in the accounts, there may be not, but I don't have a clue if that is the case or not, neither would I suggest from our discussion do you. Do I worry about that no, do I need to see the accounts to satisfy my curiosity immediately no.

I really don't know which artilcle you refer to as wheredoes it say this used in your opening line

Stfc have decided to "announce" that they will not be disclosing full and factual account details.

The word factual is not used at all, neither is the rest of the statement used well not that I can see anywhere perhaps you will tell me where it is..until then, can't see we will ever be on the same wavelength or understanding and those that love to dish out negative and support conspiracy theories on here will contiunue to support your position
No. 1 bored already
No. 2 accounts (bare bones) have been filed but full accounts (the meat) will not be released for reasons mentioned in the article (aka partial disclosure)
No. 3 when I mention 3rd party payments blah blah I was being sarcastic that this is what people are going to want to see and moan about so let's get on with it
No. 4 I said let's be open and honest so we can move on already and I wholeheartedly stand by that remark
No. 5 bored already
Good to see the rather pathetic Cleuso getting a good pasting on here tonight, which is very long overdue.

You are a small insignificant dick Cleuso, who enjoys insulting many people, including me, but the Lady poster this evening has simply run rings around you, several times!!!
Maybe Jockster, but not in a loving or factual way, something you seem to revel in.
Cleuso I think it was the put down you gave that person JB the other night has cut very deeply obviously ..... good words without the vile abuse have far more effect it seems.
[quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joey butler[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatdogirlsknowabout football1[/bold] wrote: Err..smokescreen Fact of the matter is that last years accounts are closed and filed (fact) Any "ongoing legal proceedings" will either have been accounted for in last year's accounts or will be pending this years accounts (fact) The Club are clearly using the "ongoing legal issues" to distract from the fact that last year's accounts are concluded and filed so there can only, really, be someting in those accounts that the Club do not want released possibly as they dont want to dredge up the history of third party payouts to ex board members blah blah Any "ongoing legal issues" that werent included in last year's accounts will fall into this year's accounts which we dont get to see until they end of the accounting year anyway! Lets be open, lets be honest, get the full accounts and info in the public domain asap and we can all jolly well (have a moan) but then move on already[/p][/quote]And you theory is based on what ? "guesswork" or "imagination" or "inside knowledge ? Fact.[/p][/quote]Clue is in the post "Clueso"....if you re-read post, the filing of accounts is a definitive legal obligation with a clear and precise end date. If the Club have already admitted the accounts are 'closed and filed' then this means...believe it or not....that the accounts are closed and filed[/p][/quote]So if they are closed and filed they must be available .. Right ?... go have a look at companies house.... if the information isn't at companies house where it is sent, then as a private company l they are under no obligation to reveal anything other than the statutory requirements..... you may not like that... but that is the way it is fan or otherwise.... Clearly you haven't seen them or you would be naming those third party payouts that you believe are there....as you haven't given that detail then it must be imagination or guesswork at work.[/p][/quote]The point being the limited accounts are closed and filed but the information on the full accounts "will not be released" ergo the Club have been advised NOT to release the full accounts and NOT to disclose all information Nowhere in my post have I suggested the Club is under an obligation to release full details. Purely the suggestion that they come with clean hands if there is nothing to hide,while else wouldnt they Again, read the facts, the article itself clearly states that the Club has made a decision to "withhold" certain information[/p][/quote]Read my fuller reply to Oi Den.... the reason is perfectly valid and quite sensible unless you want the other parties in dispute to have a negotiation advantage should they reach court.[/p][/quote]Valid or no....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn[/p][/quote]...you said....if you go on record to say that you have been advised to withhold information, adverse inferences will be drawn.... I ask .......Why ? Read the article fully not just the bits you want to use to try to justify or validate your theory. There is no reason to reach your conclusions unless you have further factual evidence, which you don't have You introduce the word -withold - in your note at 6.16pm yet you ignore the context and information within the article. The context for the delays was quite clearly set out and explained in the article and easily understood to any one with an open mind.... Incidentally, the word, withold, never appeared at all in the article, it was first used by you. What it said was and I quote............... it was in the best interests of the club for some of the finer points of the audit to remain private for the time being. Again you ignore the phrase "for the time being" ... doesn't preclude them being released as and when the time is appropriate. Given the previous commiment for transparency and once the legals are out of the way I antiicipate it will happen...but realistically it won't be tomorrow and I doubt we can expect that in the next few months. What I don't understand is how you come up with your payments conspiracy theory, yet ignore the facts in the article - the advice not to disclose at this time came from the STFC legal team I suspect ..... Jockster..... imaginary theory 0 reliance on factuals 1 - you may like to rethink your observation, .[/p][/quote]Stfc have decided to "announce" that they will not be disclosing full and factual account details. My point, which you continue to miss, is if there's nothing to say anything! If the reason is genuinely in light of pending actions against us then there must be something of relevance or consequence within the accounts If full accounts were release now, it would be moaned about BUT would also be forgotten by tomorrow (god knows I'm bored of it already) However by not releasing full accounts, if this is indeed pertinent and relevant then the presiding judge would order full disclosure anyway and thAts when the accounts get sensationalised and all get blown out of proportion By these actions themselves could add weight to any claimants claim I don't need you to validate my comments. This is a FORUM where I can voice my opinion thanks and being fully aware of the juxtapose of legal argument in court...what might seem as a measure to protect the claim could be considered an admission of a case to answer[/p][/quote]Of course you can post anything you like..others on here seem to have loads of imagination...OR agendas which has nothing to do with facts. There may well be something pertinent in the accounts, there may be not, but I don't have a clue if that is the case or not, neither would I suggest from our discussion do you. Do I worry about that no, do I need to see the accounts to satisfy my curiosity immediately no. I really don't know which artilcle you refer to as wheredoes it say this used in your opening line Stfc have decided to "announce" that they will not be disclosing full and factual account details. The word factual is not used at all, neither is the rest of the statement used well not that I can see anywhere perhaps you will tell me where it is..until then, can't see we will ever be on the same wavelength or understanding and those that love to dish out negative and support conspiracy theories on here will contiunue to support your position[/p][/quote]No. 1 bored already No. 2 accounts (bare bones) have been filed but full accounts (the meat) will not be released for reasons mentioned in the article (aka partial disclosure) No. 3 when I mention 3rd party payments blah blah I was being sarcastic that this is what people are going to want to see and moan about so let's get on with it No. 4 I said let's be open and honest so we can move on already and I wholeheartedly stand by that remark No. 5 bored already[/p][/quote]Good to see the rather pathetic Cleuso getting a good pasting on here tonight, which is very long overdue. You are a small insignificant dick Cleuso, who enjoys insulting many people, including me, but the Lady poster this evening has simply run rings around you, several times!!![/p][/quote]Maybe Jockster, but not in a loving or factual way, something you seem to revel in.[/p][/quote]Cleuso I think it was the put down you gave that person JB the other night has cut very deeply obviously ..... good words without the vile abuse have far more effect it seems. Chish and Fips
  • Score: 0

10:05am Wed 22 Jan 14

The Jockster says...

Chish and Fips wrote:
The Jockster wrote:
Joey I reckon Cleuso is a Des O'Connor fan! He must've been listening to Des's "hit" - Dickadumbdumb lol! -:)
Oh dear Jock you get worse - very catty and transparent ... :O(

Cleuso is entitled to his opinion and to stand his ground with what really was quite a discussion, please note he done this without getting abusive or any childish name calling that others sink to.

Your matchday posts are good - shame you didn't stick to your words and stop posting in between.
or just stick to the Ch4 Racing bore me to tears on some other site.
Chish good to see you are still biting and that I'm clearly getting under your skin- well tough me old china. It was a tongue in cheek throwaway comment hence the smiley.
Cleuso may not have been abusive- but he was IMO summarily dismissive of WhatGirls comments who seemed well informed of accounting/company reporting procedures and you admitted you hadn't any idea.
I'm off to get my ticket for Saturday - you want me to get one for you? Be good to get out of that armchair eh?
[quote][p][bold]Chish and Fips[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: Joey I reckon Cleuso is a Des O'Connor fan! He must've been listening to Des's "hit" - Dickadumbdumb lol! -:)[/p][/quote]Oh dear Jock you get worse - very catty and transparent ... :O( Cleuso is entitled to his opinion and to stand his ground with what really was quite a discussion, please note he done this without getting abusive or any childish name calling that others sink to. Your matchday posts are good - shame you didn't stick to your words and stop posting in between. or just stick to the Ch4 Racing bore me to tears on some other site.[/p][/quote]Chish good to see you are still biting and that I'm clearly getting under your skin- well tough me old china. It was a tongue in cheek throwaway comment hence the smiley. Cleuso may not have been abusive- but he was IMO summarily dismissive of WhatGirls comments who seemed well informed of accounting/company reporting procedures and you admitted you hadn't any idea. I'm off to get my ticket for Saturday - you want me to get one for you? Be good to get out of that armchair eh? The Jockster
  • Score: 0

10:19am Wed 22 Jan 14

Chish and Fips says...

The Jockster wrote:
Chish and Fips wrote:
The Jockster wrote:
Joey I reckon Cleuso is a Des O'Connor fan! He must've been listening to Des's "hit" - Dickadumbdumb lol! -:)
Oh dear Jock you get worse - very catty and transparent ... :O(

Cleuso is entitled to his opinion and to stand his ground with what really was quite a discussion, please note he done this without getting abusive or any childish name calling that others sink to.

Your matchday posts are good - shame you didn't stick to your words and stop posting in between.
or just stick to the Ch4 Racing bore me to tears on some other site.
Chish good to see you are still biting and that I'm clearly getting under your skin- well tough me old china. It was a tongue in cheek throwaway comment hence the smiley.
Cleuso may not have been abusive- but he was IMO summarily dismissive of WhatGirls comments who seemed well informed of accounting/company reporting procedures and you admitted you hadn't any idea.
I'm off to get my ticket for Saturday - you want me to get one for you? Be good to get out of that armchair eh?
To be honest Jock thought you trying to wind up ol JB up a bit more.(as if he needs it ;o) )

Yep I still haven't been out there this season .. I just haven't had the time or inclination to be honest ... got me bus passes now, as parking was always a complete turn off for me.
So I appreciate your offer, but may get there one day under my own steam ... of course I would like to point out it doesn't stop me posting on here does it just because of my lack of a season ticket or attending.
.....
TTFN Chish .... missing you already :o)
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chish and Fips[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: Joey I reckon Cleuso is a Des O'Connor fan! He must've been listening to Des's "hit" - Dickadumbdumb lol! -:)[/p][/quote]Oh dear Jock you get worse - very catty and transparent ... :O( Cleuso is entitled to his opinion and to stand his ground with what really was quite a discussion, please note he done this without getting abusive or any childish name calling that others sink to. Your matchday posts are good - shame you didn't stick to your words and stop posting in between. or just stick to the Ch4 Racing bore me to tears on some other site.[/p][/quote]Chish good to see you are still biting and that I'm clearly getting under your skin- well tough me old china. It was a tongue in cheek throwaway comment hence the smiley. Cleuso may not have been abusive- but he was IMO summarily dismissive of WhatGirls comments who seemed well informed of accounting/company reporting procedures and you admitted you hadn't any idea. I'm off to get my ticket for Saturday - you want me to get one for you? Be good to get out of that armchair eh?[/p][/quote]To be honest Jock thought you trying to wind up ol JB up a bit more.(as if he needs it ;o) ) Yep I still haven't been out there this season .. I just haven't had the time or inclination to be honest ... got me bus passes now, as parking was always a complete turn off for me. So I appreciate your offer, but may get there one day under my own steam ... of course I would like to point out it doesn't stop me posting on here does it just because of my lack of a season ticket or attending. ..... TTFN Chish .... missing you already :o) Chish and Fips
  • Score: 0

10:23am Wed 22 Jan 14

Oi Den! says...

On reflection, I think a lot of us got carried away yesterday in the discussion about legal advice etc. It appears that Ms Shah was never going to say anything more than the meaningless waffle she spouted in her "commentary". The giveaway was surely "I did a commentary and I know people said that wasn’t enough and they want to look at the numbers." She seemed to believe that mere football fans would be happily fobbed off with her empty words, unsupported by anything of substance. If she ever intended to give a meaningful analysis, she would have been embarrassed by her "commentary" and would have explained there and then that the poor content was due to restrictions on what she could say.

OK, I know I've flogged it to death, and I will stop now, but I think Ms Shah has marked her own card very clearly with this episode. The future's buzzwords and not much else.
On reflection, I think a lot of us got carried away yesterday in the discussion about legal advice etc. It appears that Ms Shah was never going to say anything more than the meaningless waffle she spouted in her "commentary". The giveaway was surely "I did a commentary and I know people said that wasn’t enough and they want to look at the numbers." She seemed to believe that mere football fans would be happily fobbed off with her empty words, unsupported by anything of substance. If she ever intended to give a meaningful analysis, she would have been embarrassed by her "commentary" and would have explained there and then that the poor content was due to restrictions on what she could say. OK, I know I've flogged it to death, and I will stop now, but I think Ms Shah has marked her own card very clearly with this episode. The future's buzzwords and not much else. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree